Skip to main content

Full text of "THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY. Adorno"

See other formats


STUDIES IN PREJUDICE 


Edited by Max Horkheimer 
and Samuel H. Flowerman 

THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

By T. W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Bruns'wik, 

Dafiiel J. Levinson and R. Nevitt Sanford 

DYNAMICS OF PREJUDICE 

A PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY OF VETERANS 

by Bruno Bettelheim and Morris Janonvitz 

ANTI-SEMITISM AND ECONOMICAL DISORDER 

A PSYCHOANALYTIC INTERPRETATION 

by Nathan W. Ackerman and Marie Jahoda 
REHEARSAL FOR DESTRUCTION 

A STUDY OF POLITICAL ANTI-SEMITISM IN IMPERIAL GERMANY 

by Paul W. Massing 

PROPHETS OF DECEIT 

A STUDY OF THE TECHNIQUES OF THE AMERICAN AGITATOR 

by Leo Lovoenthal and Norbert Guterman 
Other Volumes in Preparation 


SPONSORED BY 

THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE 
SOCIAL STUDIES SERIES: PUBLICATION NO. Ill 



FOREWORD TO STUDIES IN PREJUDICE 


At this moment in world history anti-Semitism is not manifesting itself 
with the full and violent destructiveness of which we know it to be capable. 
Even a social disease has its periods of quiescence during which the social 
scientists, like the biologist or the physician, can study it in the search for 
more effective ways to prevent or reduce the virulence of the next outbreak. 

Today the world scarcely remembers the mechanized persecution and 
extermination of millions of human beings only a short span of years away in 
what was once regarded as the citadel of Western civilization. Yet the con- 
science of many men was aroused. How could it be, they asked each other, 
that in a culture of law, order, and reason, there should have survived the 
irrational remnants of ancient racial and religious hatreds? How could they 
explain the willingness of great masses of people to tolerate the mass ex- 
termination of their fellow citizens? What tissues in the life of our modern 
society remain cancerous, and despite our assumed enlightenment show 
the incongruous atavism of ancient peoples? And what within the individual 
organism responds to certain stimuli in our culture with attitudes and acts of 
destructive aggression? 

But an aroused conscience is not enough if it does not stimulate a systematic 
search for an answer. Mankind has paid too dearly for its naive faith in the 
automatic effect of the mere passage of time; incantations have really 
never dispelled storms, disaster, pestilence, disease or other evils; nor does 
he who torments another cease his torture out of sheer boredom with his 
victim. 

Prejudice is one of the problems of our times for which everyone has a 
theory but no one an answer. Every man, in a sense, believes that he is his own 
social scientist, for social science is the stuff of everyday living. The progress 
of science can perhaps be charted by the advances that scientists have made 
over commonsense notions of phenomena. In an effort to advance beyond 
mere commonsense approaches to problems of intergroup conflict, the 
American Jewish Committee in May, 1944, invited a group of American 
scholars of various backgrounds and disciplines to a two-day conference on 
religious and racial prejudice. At this meeting, a research program was out- 
lined which would enlist scientific method in the cause of seeking solutions 
to this crucial problem. Two levels of research were recommended. One was 
more limited in scope and geared to the recurring problems faced by edu- 
cational agencies; e.g., the study of public reaction to selected current 


vi FOREWORD TO STUDIES IN PREJUDICE 

events, and the evaluation of various techniques and methods such as those 
involved in mass media of communication as they impinge upon intergroup 
relationships. The other level suggested was one of basic research, basic in 
that it should result eventually in additions to organized knowledge in this 
field. The first level frequently consists of a large number of small studies, 
limited in scope and focused sharply on a given issue. In practice, we have 
found that the “goodness” of our smaller studies was proportional to our 
ingenuity in so devising them that they, too, could contribute basically to 
knowledge. The chief difference between the two levels of research— some- 
times loosely called “short-range” and “long-range” research-seems largely 
to be due to the immediacy of implementation of findings as program-related 
or unrelated, rather than to differences in methodology, skills and tech- 
niques. On both levels, it is necessary to pursue an interdisciplinary approach 
to research problems. 

To further research on both levels, the American Jewish Committee estab- 
lished a Department of Scientific Research, headed in turn by each of us. 
The department saw its responsibility not only in itself initiating fundamental 
studies in the phenomenon of prejudice, but also in helping to stimulate new 
studies. 

The present series of volumes represents the first fruits of this effort. In 
a sense, the initial five volumes constitute one unit, an integrated whole, 
each part of which illuminates one or another facet of the phenomenon we 
call prejudice. Three' of the books deal with those elements in the personal- 
ity of modern man that predispose him to reactions of hostility to racial 
and religious groups. They attempt answers to the question: WLat is there 
in the psychology of the individual that renders him “prejudiced” or “un- 
prejudiced,” that makes him more or less likely to respond favorably to the 
agitation of a Goebbels or a Gerald K. Smith? The volume on The Au- 
thoritarian Personality by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson and San- 
ford, based upon a combination of research techniques, suggests one answer. 
It demonstrates that there is a close correlation between a number of deep- 
rooted personality traits, and overt prejudice. The study has also succeeded 
in producing an instrument for measuring these traits among various strata 
of the population. 

Within a more limited range of inquiry, the same question was asked with 
respect to two specific groups. The study on Dynamics of Prejudice by 
Bettelheim and Janowitz, considers the connection between personality 
traits and prejudice among war veterans. Here the investigators were able to 
examine the impact of the war experience, with its complex anxieties and 
tensions, as an added factor of major significance affecting tens of millions 
of people. Anti-Semitism and Emotional Disorder by Ackerman and Jahoda, 
is based upon case histories of a number of individuals, from different 
walks of life, who have received intensive psychotherapy. The special sig- 



FOREWORD TO STUDIES IN PREJUDICE vii 

nificance of this study lies precisely in the analytical source of the material, 
in the availability of a body of evidence dealing with phenomena beneath 
the realm of the conscious and the rational, and illuminating the correlation 
established in more general terms in the basic investigation of the authori- 
tarian personality. 

The other important factor in prejudice is of course the social situation 
itself, i.e., the external stimuli to which the predispositions, within the indi- 
vidual have reacted and continue to react. Nazi Germany is the vivid example 
of the effect of the social situation, and it is to the understanding of the roots 
of Nazi anti-Semitism and thence to the present task of democratic reorienta- 
tion in Germany that Rehearsal for Destruction by Massing is directed. As 
mediator between the world and the individual psyche, the agitator molds 
already existing prejudices and tendencies into overt doctrines and ultimately 
into overt action. 

In the Prophets of Deceit by Lowenthal and Guterman the role of the 
agitator is studied. The agitator’s technique of persuasion, the mechanism 
of mediation that translates inchoate feeling into specific belief and action 
make up the theme of that volume. 

It may strike the reader that we have placed undue stress upon the per- 
sonal and the psychological rather than upon the social aspect of prejudice. 
This is not due to a personal preference for psychological analysis nor to a 
failure to see that the cause of irrational hostility is in the last instance to be 
found in social frustration and injustice. Our aim is not merely to describe 
prejudice but to explain it in order to help in its eradication. That is the 
challenge we would meet. Eradication means re-education, scientifically 
planned on the basis of understanding scientifically arrived at. And education 
in a strict sense is by its nature personal and psychological. Once we under- 
stand, for example, how the war experience may in some cases have strength- 
ened personality traits predisposed to group hatred, the educational remedies 
may follow logically. Similarly, to expose the psychological tricks in the 
arsenal of the agitator may help to immunize his prospective victims against 
them. 

Since the completion of these studies the Department of Scientific Re- 
search of the American Jewish Committee has moved ahead into areas of 
research in which the unit of study is the group, the institution, the com- 
munity rather than the individual. Fortified by a better knowledge of indi- 
vidual dynamics, we are now concerned with achieving a better understand- 
ing of group dynamics. For we recognize that the individual in vacuo is but 
an artifact; even in the present series of studies, although essentially psycho- 
logical in nature, it has been necessary to explain individual behavior in terms 
of social antecedents and concomitants. The second stage of our research is 
thus focused upon problems of group pressures and the sociological de- 
terminants of roles in given social situations. We seek answers to such ques- 



viii FOREWORD TO STUDIES IN PREJUDICE 

tions as: Why does an individual behave in a “tolerant” manner in one 
situation and in a “bigoted” manner in another situation? To what extent may 
certain forms of intergroup conflict, which appear on the surface to be 
based upon ethnic difference, be based upon other factors, using ethnic 
difference as content? y 

The authors of the volumes and the many colleagues upon whose experi- 
ence and assistance they have been able to draw have widely differing pro- 
fessional interests. This is immediately reflected in the various techniques they 
have used, even in the way they write. Some of the books are more technical, 
others more “readable.” We have not sought uniformity. A search for the 
truth conducted in accordance with the best techniques of the contemporary 
social sciences was our sole aim. Yet through all this diversity of method and 
technique a significant measure of agreement has been achieved. 

The problem requires a much more extensive and much more sustained 
effort than any single institution, or any small group such as ours, could hope 
to put forth. It was our hope that whatever projects we could undertake 
would not only be contributions in themselves, but would also serve to 
stimulate active interest in continued study by other scholars. With deep 
satisfaction we have watched the steady increase in scientific publications in 
this field in the past few years. We believe that any study that bears upon 
this central theme, if carried out in a truly scientific spirit, cannot help but 
bring us closer to the theoretical, and ultimately to the practical, solution 
of the problem of reducing intergroup prejudice and hatred. 

This foreword to Studies in Prejudice would not be complete without a 
tribute to the vision and leadership of Dr. John Slawson, x Executive Vice- 
President of the American Jewish Committee, who was responsible for call- 
ing the conference of scholars and for establishing the Department of 
Scientific Research. Both editors owe Dr. Slawson a debt of gratitude for 
the inspiration, guidance, and stimulation which he gave them. 

Max Horkheimer 
Samuel H. Flowerman 



PREFACE 


This is a book about social discrimination. But its purpose is not simply 
to add a few more empirical findings to an already extensive body of in- 
formation. The central theme of the work is a relatively new concept— 
the rise of an “anthropological” species we call the authoritarian type of 
man. In contrast to the bigot of the older style he seems to combine the ideas 
and skills which are typical of a highly industrialized society with irrational 
or anti-rational beliefs. He is at the same time enlightened and superstitious, 
proud to be an individualist and in constant fear of not being like all the 
others, jealous of his independence and inclined to submit blindly to power 
and authority. The character structure which comprises these conflicting 
trends has already attracted the attention of modern philosophers and political 
thinkers. This book approaches the problem with the means of socio- 
psychological research. 

The implications and values of the study are practical as well as theo- 
retical. The authors do not believe that there is a short cut to education 
which will eliminate the long and often circuitous road of painstaking re- 
search and theoretical analysis. Nor do they think that such a problem as 
the position of minorities in modern society, and more specifically the prob- 
lem of religious and racial hatreds, can be tackled successfully either by the 
propaganda of tolerance or by apologetic refutation of errors and lies. On 
the other hand, theoretical activity and practical application are not separated 
by an unbridgeable gulf. Quite the contrary: the authors are imbued with 
the conviction that the sincere and systematic scientific elucidation of a 
phenomenon of such great historical meaning can contribute directly to 
an amelioration of the cultural atmosphere in which hatred breeds. 

This conviction must not be brushed aside as an optimistic illusion. In the 
history of civilization there have been not a few instances when mass de- 
lusions were healed not by focused propaganda but, in the final analysis, 
because scholars, with their unobtrusive yet insistent work habits, studied 
what lay at the root of the delusion. Their intellectual contribution, operat- 
ing within the framework of the development of society as a whole, was 
decisively effective. 

I should like to cite two examples. The superstitious belief in witchcraft 
was overcome in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries after men had 
come more and more under the influence of the results of modern science. 
The impact of Cartesian rationalism was decisive. This school of philosophers 



X 


PREFACE 


demonstrated— and the natural scientists following them made practical use 
of their great insight— that the previously accepted belief in the immediate 
effect of spiritual factors on the realm of the corporal is an illusion. Once this 
scientifically untenable dogma was eliminated, the foundations of the belief 
in magic were destroyed. 

As a more recent example, we have only to think of the impact of Sigmund 
Freud’s work on modern culture. Its primary importance does not lie in the 
fact that psychological research and knowledge have been enriched by new 
findings but in the fact that for some fifty years the intellectual world, and 
especially the educational, has been made more and more aware of the con- 
nection between the suppression of children (both within the home and out- 
side) and society’s usually naive ignorance of the psychological dynamics of 
the life of the child and the adult alike. The permeation of the social conscious- 
ness at large with the scientifically acquired experience that the events of 
early childhood are of prime importance for the happiness and work-po- 
tential of the adult has brought about a revolution in the relation between 
parents and children which would have been deemed impossible a hundred 
years ago. 

The present work, we hope, will find a place in this history of the inter- 
dependence between science and the cultural climate. Its ultimate goal is to 
open new avenues in a research area which can become of immediate prac- 
tical significance. It seeks to develop and promote an understanding of 
social-psychological factors which have made it possible for the authoritarian 
type of man to threaten to replace the individualistic and democratic type 
prevalent in the past century and a half of our civilization, and of the factors 
by which this threat may be contained. Progressive analysis of this new 
“anthropological” type and of its growth conditions, with an ever-increas- 
ing scientific differentiation, will enhance the chances of a genuinely educa- 
tional counterattack. 

Confidence in the possibility of a more systematic study of the mecha- 
nisms of discrimination and especially of a characterological discrimination- 
type is not based on the historical experience of the last fifteen years alone, 
but also on developments within the social sciences themselves during recent 
decades. Considerable and successful efforts have been made in this country 
as well as in Europe to raise the various disciplines dealing with man as a 
social phenomenon to the organizational level of cooperation that has been 
a tradition in the natural sciences. What I am thinking of are not merely 
mechanical arrangements for bringing together work done in various fields 
of study, as in symposia or textbooks, but the mobilization of different 
methods and skills, developed in distinct fields of theory and empirical in- 
vestigation, for one common research program. 

Such cross-fertilization of different branches of the social sciences and 
psychology is exactly what has taken place in the present volume. Experts 



PREFACE 


XI 


in the fields of social theory and depth psychology, content analysis, clinical 
psychology, political sociology, and projective testing pooled their experi- 
ences and findings. Having worked together in the closest cooperation, they 
now present as the result of their joint efforts the elements of a theory of 
the authoritarian type of man in modern society. 

They are not unmindful that they were not the first to have studied this 
phenomenon. They gratefully acknowledge their debt to the remarkable 
psychological profiles of the prejudiced individual projected by Sigmund 
Freud, Maurice Samuel, Otto Fenichel, and others. Such brilliant insights 
were in a sense the indispensable prerequisites for the methodological in- 
tegration and research organization which the present study has attempted, 
and we think achieved to a certain degree, on a scale previously unapproached. 

Institutionally, this book represents a joint undertaking of the Berkeley 
Public Opinion Study and the Institute of Social Research. Both organiza- 
tions had already made their mark in efforts to integrate various sciences and 
different research methods. The Berkeley Public Opinion Study had de- 
voted itself to the examination of prejudice in terms of social psychology and 
had hit upon the close correlation between overt prejudice and certain 
personality traits of a destructive nihilistic nature, suggested by an ir- 
rationally pessimistic ideology of the intolerant. The Institute of Social 
Research was dedicated to the principle of theoretical and methodological 
integration from its earliest days at the University of Frankfurt, and pub- 
lished several studies growing out of this basic approach. In one volume, on 
authority and the family, the concept of the “authoritarian personality” was 
put forward as a link between psychological dispositions and political lean- 
ings. Pursuing this line of thought further, the Institute formulated and 
published in 1939 a comprehensive research project on anti-Semitism. Some 
five years later, a series of discussions with the late Dr. Ernst Simmel and 
Professor R. Nevitt Sanford of the University of California laid the basis for 
the present project. 

As finally organized, the research staff was headed by four senior mem- 
bers, Dr. R. N. Sanford of the Berkeley Public Opinion Study and Dr. T. 
W. Adorno of the Institute of Social Research, who were the directors, and 
Dr. Else Frenkel-Brunswik and Dr. Daniel Levinson. Their collaboration 
was so close, perhaps I should say democratic, and the work so evenly di- 
vided among them that it became clear at an early stage that they ought to 
share equally in the responsibility and the credit for the present publica- 
tion. The main concepts of the study were evolved by the team as a whole. 
This is true above all of the idea of the indirect measurement of antidemo- 
cratic trends, the F scale. Some division of labor could not be avoided, 
however, and it proved advisable to have the various chapters signed by 
individual staff members. The actual writing process necessarily involves 



XU 


PREFACE 


a more intimate occupation with the materials under consideration and thus 
a measure of more specific responsibility. Nevertheless, the fact remains 
that each of the four senior members contributed to every chapter and hence 
that the work as a whole is thoroughly collective. 

It may be of interest to note the primary assignments of each of the 
senior staff members during the actual research process. Dr. Sanford con- 
ceived the way the various techniques should be combined and planned the 
research procedures. Much of his time was devoted to detailed case studies, 
with special reference to the dynamic etiology of the prejudiced personality. 
Dr. Adorno introduced sociological dimensions related to personality factors 
and characterological concepts concomitant with authoritarianism. He also 
analyzed the ideological sections of the interviews by means of categories 
of social theory. Dr. Brunswik formulated some of the first personality 
variables of the research. On the basis of her earlier work, she carried through 
the systematic, dynamically oriented categorization and quantification of 
the interview material. Dr. Levinson had primary responsibility for the AS, 
E, and PEC scales, for the analysis of ideology in psychological terms, for 
the Projective Question analysis, and for the statistical design and procedure. 

Three monographic chapters, one an over-all presentation of the meth- 
odology and results of one of the main techniques, the Thematic Ap- 
perception Test, and two dealing with “critical” groups were written by 
Betty Aron, Maria Levinson, and William Morrow. All three were perma- 
nently on the staff of the study and completely familiar with its progress. 

The project could not have been realized without the generous and intel- 
ligent support of the American Jewish Committee. In 1944 the Committee, 
feeling the need for a sound research basis for the financial and organizational 
support it planned to give to cooperative studies, of a type which this book 
exemplifies, decided to create a Department of Scientific Research. From the 
first the Department was conceived as a scientific center to stimulate and 
co-ordinate the work of leading scientists in the sociology and psychology of 
prejudice and, at the same time, as a laboratory for evaluating action pro- 
grams. Though the members of the Department’s research staff are con- 
stantly under pressure to solve problems set up for them by the day-to-day 
work of an extensive organization fighting for democratic rights on several 
broad fronts, they have never shirked the responsibility of furthering basic 
research programs. This volume symbolizes that link between democratic 
education and fundamental research. 

Max Horkheimer, 
Director, Institute of Social Research 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 


The authors wish to express their indebtedness to the American Jewish 
Committee for the grants which sustained their research during a period of 
two and one-half years. They owe a special debt of gratitude to Dr. Max 
Horkheimer, Director of the Department of Scientific Research of the 
American Jewish Committee at the time the present study was undertaken. 
Dr. Horkheimer played the crucial role in the initiation of the study, and 
he remained closely identified with it until the end; he contributed ideas, 
guidance, encouragement and untiring activity in support of our aims. We 
wish to thank him, further, for contributing the preface to this volume. 
To Dr. Samuel Flowerman, who succeeded Dr. Horkheimer as Director 
of the Department of Scientific Research of the American Jewish Committee, 
the authors are likewise heavily indebted. Dr. Flowerman’s interest, advice, 
and tangible help in practical matters were invaluable in bringing about the 
publication of this volume. 

Our collaborators, Betty Aron, Maria Levinson, and Dr. William Morrow, 
are to be thanked not only for their special studies which contribute so 
substantially to the content of this volume but for their participation in all 
phases of the study as a whole. For extended periods during the course of 
the study each of them contributed to the development of theory and to 
the collection, analysis and interpretation of data in areas other than those 
covered by their special studies. Dr. Suzanne Reichard, who conducted a 
special investigation of the Rorschach records of some of our subjects, like- 
wise participated in the various phases of the study; she devoted most of her 
time to administering the Thematic Apperception Test, interviewing sub- 
jects and assisting in the analysis and interpretation of the interview material. 

In conducting interviews with our subjects in the San Francisco Bay Area 
we had the able assistance of Dr. Merle Elliott, Virginia Ives, Dr. Mary Cover 
Jones, Sheila Moon and Rose Segure. Rose Segure also assisted, as did Jack 
Danielson, in making the arrangements whereby certain groups of subjects 
filled out our questionnaires. Dr. Winfield Wickham generously cooperated 
by administering the Thematic Apperception Test to a large group of our 
subjects, and Roger Bardsley assisted in the analysis of Thematic Appercep- 
tion Test records. 

Numerous colleagues and friends read all or parts of the manuscript, took 
the time to discuss it with us, and made many corrections, suggestions, and 
helpful criticisms. We wish to express our appreciation to Dr. Egon Bruns- 

xiii 




XIV 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 


wik, Frederick Carpenter, Dr. William R. Dennes, Dr. Ernst Kris, Dr. 
Calvin Hall, Dr. David Krech, Dr. Boyd McCandless, Dr. Robert Merton, 
Dr. Donald MacKinnon, Dr. Gardner Murphy, Dr. Lois B. Murphy, Dr. 
Milton Rokeach, Richard Seymour, and Dr. Edward Tolman. Dr. Rheem 
Jarrett and Dr. George Kuznets deserve special thanks for their valuable 
advice in statistical matters. 

Chapters XVI, XVII, XVIII and XIX, were prepared in continuous col- 
laboration with members of the Institute of Social Research. Particular 
thanks are due Dr. Leo Lowenthal and Dr. Frederick Pollock. The latter 
also participated in organizing a small staff to carry on our research in Los 
Angeles. The gathering of data was here supervised by Dr. J. F. Brown, 
who also contributed important theoretical concepts. The distribution and 
collection of questionnaires and the interviewing of subjects in Los Angeles 
was in the hands of Emily Gruen and Carol Creedon, assisted by Ida Malcolm 
and James Mower. Grace Berg and Margaret Weil served ably as secretaries, 
and Margot von Mendelssohn, permanent secretary of the Institute of 
Social Research, devoted a large part of her time to this project. Dr. Fred- 
erick Hacker, Dr. Ernest Lewy, and Dr. Marcel Frym participated in the 
seminars which were held regularly in Los Angeles while the research was 
in progress there; their devotion to the study is particularly appreciated. 

The mountainous task of scoring, tabulating and performing innumerable 
statistical operations upon the material gathered by means of some 2000 
questionnaires was performed with patience and care by Elian Ulery and 
Anne Batchelder Morrow. They were assisted in no small way by Lionel 
Whitnah, Jack Danielson, Frank Vanasek, and Nannette Heiman. Elian 
Ulery and Anne Batchelder Morrow also deserve much credit for their 
scoring of the material elicited by the “projective questions” described in 
Chapter XV. Dr. Alfred Glixman is to be thanked for performing a special 
correlational analysis of our attitude scales— work which is described in 
Chapters IV and VII. 

At different periods during the course of the study, Marjorie Castagnetto, 
Anne Vollmar and Zelma Seidner had charge of the secretarial work in 
Berkeley. Each in turn, with complete loyalty and superior competence, 
assumed the enormous burden of typing records and manuscripts and, in 
addition, took responsibility for the innumerable small but crucially im- 
portant tasks incident to keeping in motion a research involving numerous 
workers and subjects. Our most heartfelt thanks go to Anne Vollmar who, 
in addition to performing the secretarial work described above, labored 
with endless patience and devotion to make something relatively uniform 
and presentable out of the manuscripts of all shapes and sizes which we 
handed her— an editorial job of enormous proportion— and whose serenity 
and wisdom in practical matters were relied upon and deeply appreciated 
by all members of our staff. Alice Wilson, Alice Davis, Ruth Gay, Betty 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 


XV 


Cummings, and Edna Sexias also helped with the typing of records and 
manuscript; we greatly appreciate their willingness to be called upon when 
needed. 

If we were to mention here all the people who cooperated by making 
arrangements for us to administer our questionnaires to the groups with 
which they were associated, and other people who assisted in particular 
aspects of the study, the list would be very long indeed. Acknowledgments 
are made at appropriate places in the chapters that follow. 

To complete a special project lying within the scope of our study and to 
meet unexpected expenses connected with preparation of the manuscript 
for publication it was necessary to seek financial aid in addition to that 
described above. We are indebted to the Social Science Research Council 
for the Grant-in-Aid which made possible the correlational analysis de- 
scribed in Chapters IV and VII, and to the Rosenberg Foundation, the Re- 
search Board of the University of California, the Institute of Social Sciences 
of the University of California and the Graduate Division of Western 
Reserve University for their support in time of special need. 

Finally, we are grateful to Dr. Felix J. Weil of the Institute of Social Re- 
search. He contributed many helpful criticisms of the manuscript, under- 
took the arduous task of coordinating all the proof reading, and performed 
invaluable services of an editorial nature. 


The Authors 


CONTENTS 


FOREWORD TO STUDIES IN PREJUDICE V 

PREFACE BY MAX HORKHEIMER ix 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii 

I. INTRODUCTION ‘ i 

A. THE PROBLEM I 

B. METHODOLOGY I I 

1 . General Characteristics of the Method, 11 ; 2. The 
Techniques, 13 

C. PROCEDURES IN THE COLLECTION OF DATA 1 9 


1 . The Groups Studied, 19; 2 . The Distribution and 

Collection of Questionnaires, 23; 3. The Selection of 

Subjects for Intensive Clinical Study, 25 

Part I 

THE MEASUREMENT OF IDEOLOGICAL TRENDS 

II. THE CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COL- 
LEGE MEN: A PRELIMINARY VIEW-R. Nevitt Sanford 31 


A. INTRODUCTION 3 1 

B. MACK: A MAN HIGH ON ETHNOCENTRISM 32 

C. LARRY*. A MAN LOW ON ETHNOCENTRISM 37 

D. ANALYSIS OF THE TWO CASES 39 


1 . Ideology Concerning the Jews, 41; 2 . General Eth- 
nocentrism, 43; 3. Politics, 45; 4. Religion, 52; 5. Vo- 
cation and Income, 54 

III. THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY -Daniel J. 

Levinson 57 

A. INTRODUCTION 57 

B. CONSTRUCTION OF THE ANTI-SEMITISM (A-s) SCALE 58 

1 . General Rules in Item Formulation, 59; 2 . Major Sub- 
divisions or Areas: The Subscales, 62; 3. The Total Anti- 
Semitism (A-S) Scale, 68 
xvii 



CONTENTS 


c. results: statistical analysis of the scale 7 1 

1. Reliability, 72; 2. Intercorrelations of the Subscales, 

74; 3. Internal Consistency: Statistical Analysis of the 

Individual Items, 76 

D. THE SHORT FORM OF THE A-S SCALE 83 

E. VALIDATION BY CASE STUDIES: THE RESPONSES OF MACK AND 

LARRY ON THE A-S SCALE 89 

F. DISCUSSION: THE STRUCTURE OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 92 

THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY -Daniel 
]. Levinson J o2 

A. INTRODUCTION 102 

B. CONSTRUCTION OF THE ETHNOCENTRISM (e) SCALE IO4 

1. Major Subdivisions or Areas: The Subscales, 105; 2. 

The Total Ethnocentrism (E) Scale, 109 
c. results: statistical analysis of the scale 109 


1. Reliability, 112; 2. Intercorrelations Among the Sub- 
scales, 113; 3. Internal Consistency: Statistical Analysis 

of the Individual Items, 114; 4. Second Form of the E 
Scale (Form 78), 116 

D. THE INCLUSION OF ANTI-SEMITISM WITHIN GENERAL ETH- 
NOCENTRISM 122 

1. The Third Form of the E Scale (Form 60), 123; 2. 

The Fourth Form of the E Scale (Forms 45 and 40), 127; 

3. A Suggested Final E Scale, 141 

E. VALIDATION BY CASE STUDIES: THE RESPONSES OF MACK AND 

LARRY ON THE E SCALE 1 43 

F. CONCLUSIONS: THE STRUCTURE OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 1 45 

POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEM- 
BERSHIPS IN RELATION TO ETHNOCENTRISM— 
Daniel J. Levinson 15 1 

A. INTRODUCTION 15 1 

B. CONSTRUCTION OF THE POLITICO-ECONOMIC CONSERVATISM 

(PEC) SCALE 153 

1. Some Major Trends in Contemporary Liberalism and 
Conservatism, 153; 2. The Initial PEC Scale (Form 78), 

157; 3. The Second PEC Scale (Form 60), 163; 4. The 
Third PEC Scale (Forms 45 and 40), 168; 5. Discussion: 
Some Patterns of Contemporary Liberalism and Conserva- 
tism, 175 

C. THE RELATION RETWEEN ETHNOCENTRISM AND CONSERVATISM 178 

D. VALIDATION BY CASE STUDIES: THE RESPONSES OF MACK AND 

LARRY ON THE PEC SCALE 1 83 



CONTENTS 


XIX 


E. THE RELATION BETWEEN ETHNOCENTRISM AND MEMBERSHIP 

IN VARIOUS POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC GROUPINGS I 85 

F. CONCLUSIONS 207 

VI. ETHNOCENTRISM IN RELATION TO SOME RELI- 
GIOUS ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES-R . Nevitt San- 
ford 208 

A. INTRODUCTION 20 8 

B. RESULTS 208 

1. Religious Group Memberships, 208; 2. “Importance” 

of Religion and the Church, 215; 3. ‘Scale Items, 218 
c. discussion 219 

D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 2 20 

VII. THE MEASUREMENT OF IMPLICIT ANTIDEMO- 
CRATIC TRENDS— R. Nevitt Sanford , T. W. Adorno , Else 
Frenkel-Brunswik, and Daniel J. Levinson 222 

A. INTRODUCTION 2 2 2 

B. CONSTRUCTION OF THE FASCISM (f) SCALE 224 

1. The Underlying Theory, 224; 2. The Formulation of 
Scale Items, 241 

C. RESULTS WITH SUCCESSIVE FORMS OF THE F SCALE 242 

1. Statistical Properties of the Preliminary Scale (Form 
78), 242; 2. Item Analysis and Revision of the Prelimi- 
nary Scale, 244; 3. The Second F Scale: Form 60, 247; 

4. The Third F Scale: Forms 45 and 40, 252 

D. CORRELATIONS OF THE F SCALE WITH E AND WITH PEC 262 

E. DIFFERENCES IN MEAN F-SCALE SCORE AMONG VARIOUS GROUPS 265 

F. VALIDATION BY CASE STUDIES: THE F-SCALE RESPONSES OF 

MACK AND LARRY 269 

G. CONCLUSION 279 

VIII. ETHNOCENTRISM IN RELATION TO INTELLI- 
GENCE AND EDUCATION -Daniel J. Levinson 280 

Part II 

PERSONALITY AS REVEALED THROUGH CLINICAL 
INTERVIEWS 

IX. THE INTERVIEWS AS AN APPROACH TO THE PREJ- 
UDICED PERSONALITY— Else Frenkel-Brunsvoik 291 

A. INTRODUCTION: COMPARISON OF GROUPS 29 1 

B. SELECTION OF SUBJECTS FOR THE INTERVIEWS 294 

1. Basis of Selection, 294; 2. Representativeness of the 



XX 


CONTENTS 


Interviewees, 295; 3. Approaching the Interviewees, 300 

C. THE INTERVIEWERS 3 GI 

D. SCOPE AND TECHNIQUE OF THE INTERVIEW 302 

1 . General Plan for the Interview, 302; 2. “Underlying” 
and “Manifest” Questions, 303; 3. General Instructions 

to the Interviewers, 303 

E. THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 3°4 

1. Vocation, 304; 2 . Income, 307; 3. Religion, 310; 4. 

Clinical Data, 312; 5. Politics, 320; 6 . Minorities and 

“Race,” 322 

F. THE SCORING OF THE INTERVIEWS 325 

1 . Quantification of Interview Data, 325; 2 . Broad Out- 
line of Categories in the Interview Scoring Manual, 326; 

3. The Interview Rating Procedure and the Raters, 327; 

4. Reliability of the Interview Ratings, 328; 5. Minimiz- 

ing Halo-Effects in Rating the Interviews, 333; 6 . Tabu- 
lation of Interview Ratings by Categories: Statistical Sig- 
nificance, 334 

X. PARENTS AND CHILDHOOD AS SEEN THROUGH 
THE INTERVIEWS— Else Frenkel-Bruns'Wtk 337 

A. INTRODUCTION 337 

B. ATTITUDES TOWARD PARENTS AND CONCEPTION OF THE FAMILY 338 

1 . Definition of Rating Categories and Quantitative Re- 
sults, 338; 2 . Idealization vs. Objective Appraisal of Par- 
ents, 340; 3. Genuineness of Affect, 346; 4. Feelings of 

Victimization, 347; 5. Submission vs. Principled Inde- 

pendence, 350; 6 . Dependence for Things vs. Depend- 
ence for Love, 353; 7. Ingroup Orientation to the 

Family, 356 

C. CONCEPTIONS OF CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENT 358 

1 . Definition of Rating Categories and Quantitative Re- 
sults, 358; 2. Image of the Father in Men: Distant and 

Stern vs. Relaxed and Mild, 359; 3. Image of the Father 
in Women: The Role of Provider, 365; 4. Image of the 
Mother: Sacrifice, Moralism, Restrictiveness, 366; 5. 

Parental Conflict, 368; 6 . Father-Dominated vs. Mother- 
Oriented Home, 370; 7. Discipline: Harsh Application 
of Rules vs. Assimilation of Principles, 371 

D. CHILDHOOD EVENTS AND ATTITUDES TOWARD SIBLINGS 376 

1 . Definition of Rating Categories and Quantitative Re- 
sults, 376; 2. Attitudes Toward Siblings, 377; 3. Child- 
hood Events, 382; 4. Status Concern, 382 

E. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS ON FAMILY PATTERNS 384 



CONTENTS 


XXI 


XL SEX, PEOPLE, AND SELF AS SEEN THROUGH THE 
INT ERVIEWS—Else Frenkel-Brunsvoik 

A. ATTITUDE TOWARD SEX 

1. Definition of Rating Categories and Quantitative Re- 
sults, 390; 2. Status via Sex, 393; 3. Moralistic Rejec- 
tion of Instinctual Tendencies, 395; 4. “Pure” vs. “Bad” 
Women, 397; 5. Ego- Alien Ambivalence vs. “Fondness,” 
399; 6. Exploitive Manipulation for Power, 400; 7. 
Conventionality vs. Individualism, 402; 8. Summary, 404 

B. ATTITUDE TOWARD PEOPLE 

1. Definition of Rating Categories and Quantitative Re- 
sults, 405; 2. Moralistic Condemnation vs. Permissive- 
ness, 406; 3. Extrapunitiveness, 409; 4. World as Jun- 

gle, 411; 5. Hierarchical vs. Equalitarian Conception of 
Human Relations, 413; 6. Dependence for Things, 414; 
7. Manipulation vs. Libidinization of People and Genuine 
Work Adjustment, 415; 8. Social Status vs. Intrinsic 

Worth in Friendship, 418; 9. Summary, 420 

C. ATTITUDE TOWARD PRESENT SELF 

1. Definition of Rating Categories and Quantitative Re- 
sults, 421; 2. Self-Glorification vs. Objective Appraisal, 
423; 3. Masculinity and Femininity, 428; 4. Conven- 
tionalism and Moralism, 429; 5. Conformity of Self and 

Ideal, 430; 6. Denial of Sociopsychological Causation, 
432; 7. Property as Extension of Self, 433 

. D. CONCEPTION OF CHILDHOOD SELF 

1. Definition of Rating Categories and Quantitative Re- 
sults, 434; 2. “Difficult” Child, 437; 3. Blandness vs. 
Adult-Orientation, 438; 4. Contrasting Picture of Child- 
hood and Present, 440; 5. Summary of Attitude Toward 

Present Self and Childhood Self, 440 


39 ° 

39° 


4 °5 


421 


434 


XII. DYNAMIC AND COGNITIVE PERSONALITY OR- 
GANIZATION AS SEEN THROUGH THE INTER- 
VIEWS— Else Frenkel-Brunsvoik 442 

A. DYNAMIC CHARACTER STRUCTURE 442 

1. Definition of Rating Categories and Quantitative Re- 
sults, 442; 2. Orality and Anality, 445; 3. Dependence, 

449; 4. Aggression, 450; 5. Ambivalence, 45 1 ; 6. Iden- 
tification, 452; 7. Superego, 454; 8. Strength of the 
Ego, 456; 9. Distortion of Reality, 457; 10. Physical 

Symptoms, 459 

B. COGNITIVE PERSONALITY ORGANIZATION 46 1 

1. Definition of Rating Categories and Quantitative Re- 



XXII 


CONTENTS 


suits, 461; 2. Rigidity, 461; 3. Negative Attitude To- 
ward Science. Superstition, 464; 4. Anti-Intraceptive- 
ness and Autism, 465; 5. Suggestibility, 467 

XIII. COMPREHENSIVE SCORES AND SUMMARY OF IN- 
TERVIEW RESULTS-Else Frenkel-Bmnsvoik 468 

A. THE DISCRIMINATORY POWERS OF THE MAJOR AREAS STUDIED 468 

1. Verification of Anticipated Trend by Categories, 468; 

2. Composite Ratings for Seven Major Areas, 470 

B. VALITITY OF OVER-ALL SCORES AND RATINGS OF THE INTER- 
VIEWS 47 1 

1. Individual Composite Score Based on All Areas of Rat- 
ing, 471; 2. Over-all Intuitive Rating and Its Agree- 
ment with the Composite Score, 472; 3. Agreement with 

the Questionnaire Results, 472 

C. SUMMARY OF THE PERSONALITY PATTERNS DERIVED FROM 

THE INTERVIEWS 47 3 

1. Introduction, 473; 2. Repression vs. Awareness, 474; 

3. Externalization vs. Internalization, 474; 4. Conven- 
tionalism vs. Genuineness, 476; 5. Power vs. Love-Orien- 

tation, 478; 6. Rigidity vs. Flexibility. Problems of Ad- 
justment, 479; 7. Some Genetic Aspects, 482; 8. Cul- 
tural Outlook, 484 


Part III 

PERSONALITY AS REVEALED THROUGH PROJECTIVE 

MATERIAL 

XIV. THE THEMATIC APPERCEPTION TEST IN THE 
STUDY OF PREJUDICED AND UNPREJUDICED IN- 


DIVIDUALS— Betty Aron 4 8 9 

A. TESTING PROCEDURE 49° 

1. The Sample Tested, 490; 2. Technique of Adminis- 
tration, 493; 3. The Pictures Used, 493 

B. METHOD OF ANALYSIS OF THE STORY PROTOCOLS 496 

1. The Murray-Sanford Scheme, 496; 2. Thematic Anal- 

ysis, 506 

c. THE T.A.T.S OF MACK AND LARRY 5 2 9 

1. Larry’s Stories, 530; 2. Mack’s Stories, 534; 3. Anal- 

ysis of the Stories, 537 

D. SUMMARY 543 



CONTENTS 


XX 111 


XV. PROJECTIVE QUESTIONS IN THE STUDY OF PER- 


SONALITY AND IDEOLOGY -Daniel J. Levinson 545 

A. INTRODUCTION 545 

B. QUANTIFICATION BY MEANS OF SCORING CATEGORIES 548 

C. SCORING MANUAL: CATEGORIES OF PROJECTIVE QUESTION 

RESPONSE 550 

D. RESULTS 579 


1. Reliability of Scoring, 581; 2. Projective Question 

Scores in Relation to Standing on the E Scale, 584; 3. 

Validation by Means of Case Studies: Mack and Larry, 592 

E. conclusions 595 

1. General Ego Functioning , 595; 2. Specific Properties 
of the Ego, 596; 3. Achievement Values vs. Conven- 

tional Values, 597; 4. The Handling of Dependency as 
an Underlying Trend, 599; 5. The Handling of Other 

Trends, 600 

Part IV 

QUALITATIVE STUDIES OF IDEOLOGY 


introductory remarks 603 

XVI. PREJUDICE IN THE INTERVIEW MATER1AL-T. W. 

Adorno 605 

A. INTRODUCTION 605 

B. THE “FUNCTIONAL” CHARACTER OF ANTI-SEMITISM 609 

C. THE IMAGINARY FOE 6l2 

D. ANTI-SEMITISM FOR WHAT? 6 1 7 

E. TWO KINDS OF JEWS 622 

F. THE ANTI-SEMITE’S DILEMMA 627 

G. PROSECUTOR AS JUDGE 629 

H. THE MISFIT BOURGEOIS 637 

I. OBSERVATIONS ON LOW T -SCORING SUBJECTS 644 

J. CONCLUSION 653 

XVII. POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN THE INTERVIEW 

MATERIAL-T. W. Adorno 654 

A. introduction 654 

B. FORMAL CONSTITUENTS OF POLITICAL THINKING 658 


1. Ignorance and Confusion, 658; 2. Ticket Thinking 
and Personalization in Politics, 663; 3. Surface Ideology 

and Real Opinion, 671; 4. Pseudoconservatism, 675; 5. 

The Usurpation Complex, 685; 6. F.D.R., 689; 7. Bu- 



XXIV 


CONTENTS 


reaucrats and Politicians, 693; 8. There Will Be No 
Utopia, 695; 9. No Pity for the Poor, 699; 10. Educa- 

tion Instead of Social Change, 700 

C. SOME POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC TOPICS 702 

1. Unions, 702; 2. Business and Government, 711; 3. 

Political Issues Close to the Subjects, 714; 4. Foreign 
Policy and Russia, 718; 5. Communism, 723 

XV III. SOME ASPECTS OF RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY AS RE- 
VEALED IN THE INTERVIEW MATERIAL— T. W. 


Adorno 

727 

A. 

INTRODUCTION 

727 

B. 

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 

730 

c. 

SPECIFIC ISSUES 

733 


1. The Function of Religion 

in High and Low Scorers, 


733; 2. Belief in God, Disbelief in Immortality, 736; 

3. The Irreligious Low Scorer, 738; 4. Religious Low 
Scorers, 742 

XIX. TYPES AND SYNDROMES-T. W. Adorno 744 

A. THE APPROACH 744 

B. SYNDROMES FOUND AMONG HIGH SCORERS 753 

1. Surface Resentment, 753; 2. The “Conventional” Syn- 
drome, 756; 3. The “Authoritarian” Syndrome, 759; 4. 

The Rebel and the Psychopath, 763; 5. The Crank, 765; 

6. The “Manipulative” Type, 767 

C. SYNDROMES FOUND AMONG LOW SCORERS 771 

1. The “Rigid” Low Scorer, 771; 2. The “Protesting” 
Low Scorer, 774; 3. The “Impulsive” Low Scorer, 776; 

4. The “Easy-Going” Low Scorer, 778; 5. The Genuine 
Liberal, 781 


Part V 

APPLICATIONS TO INDIVIDUALS AND TO SPECIAL GROUPS 

XX. GENETIC ASPECTS OF THE AUTHORITARIAN PER- 
SONALITY: CASE STUDIES OF TWO CONTRASTING 
INDIVIDUALS-R. Nevitt Sanford 787 

A. INTRODUCTION 787 

B. THE CASE OF MACK 788 

1. Environmental Forces and Events, 789; 2. Deeper Per- 



CONTENTS 


XXV 


sonality Needs, 794; 3. Dynamics of Surface Behavior 


and Attitudes, 800 

C. THE CONTRASTING CASE OF LARRY 809 

XXL CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS : A 

STUDY OF PRISON INMA TES— William R. Morrow 817 

A. INTRODUCTION 817 

1. The Problem, 817; 2. Sampling and Administration, 

818; 3. Plan of Discussion, 822 

B. ETHNOCENTRISM 823 


1. General Questionnaire Statistics and Their Significance, 
823; 2. Ideology Concerning Negroes: A Submerged 
Outgroup, 824; 3. Ideology Concerning Jews: A Sup- 

posed “Dominant” Outgroup, 830 


C. POLITICO-ECONOMIC ATTITUDES 835 

D. MORALS AND RELIGION 844 

E. DEFENSES AGAINST WEAKNESS 856 

F. HETEROSEXUALITY 866 

G. ANTI-INTRACEPTIVENESS AND CHILDHOOD 873 

H. ATTITUDES TO PARENTS 875 

I. “CRIMINALITY” IN HIGH AND LOW SCORERS 887 

XXII. PSYCHOLOGICAL ILL HEALTH IN RELATION TO 
POTENTIAL FASCISM: A STUDY OF PSYCHIATRIC 
CLINIC PATIENTS— Maria Hertz Levinson 891 

A. INTRODUCTION 89 1 

B. THE NATURE OF THE SAMPLE 892 

C. STATISTICAL RESULTS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE 896 

D. RELATIONSHIP OF ETHNOCENTRISM TO VARIOUS PSYCHIATRIC 

CLASSIFICATIONS 897 

1. Ethnocentrism in Relation to Neurosis and Psychosis, 

904; 2. Ethnocentrism in Relation to Specific Diagnostic 

Categories, 906 


E. ETHNOCENTRISM IN RELATION TO THE MINNESOTA MULTI- 

PHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY 9 IO 

F. PERSONALITY TRENDS AS REVEALED BY PATIENTS’ “STATE- 

MENT of problem” in the first psychiatric interview 917 
1. Selection of Material, 918; 2. The Scoring Manual: 
Description of Variables, 919; 3. The Method of Quan- 
tification, 924; 4. The Reliability of the Measures, 926; 

5. Relationship Between Ratings and Ethnocentrism Score, 

932; 6. Summary, 941 

G. CLINICAL PICTURES AND PERSONALITIES OF HIGH AND LOW 

SCORERS 942 



XXVI 


CONTENTS 


1. The High Scorers, 942; 

2. The Low Scorers, 951; 

3. The “Middles,” 959 


H. CONCLUSIONS 

961 

XXI 11. CONCLUSIONS 

97 1 

REFERENCES 

977 

INDEX 

983 



TABLES AND FIGURES 


1 (I) Groups from Whom Questionnaires Were Collected 21 

1 (III) Anti-Semitism Subscale “Offensive” 63 

2 (III) Anti-Semitism Subscale “Threatening” 64 

3 (III) Anti-Semitism Subscale “Attitudes” 65 

4 (III) Anti-Semitism Subscales “Seclusive vs. Intrusive” 66 

5 (III) “Neutral” Items in the Anti-Semitism Scale 67 

6 (III) The Total Anti-Semitism Scale 68 

Public Opinion Questionnaire A 

The Total Anti-Semitism Scale 69 

Public Opinion Questionnaire S 

7 (III) Reliability of the Anti-Semitism Scale and Its Subscales 73 

8 (III) Intercorrelations of the A-S Subscales 75 

9 (III) Anti-Semitism Scale: Item Means and Discriminatory Powers 

University of California Women 78 

10 (III) The Ten-Item A-S Scale (Form 78 ) 84 

11 (III) Reliability of the A-S Scale (Form 78 ) 86 

12 (III) Item Means and Discriminatory Powers. A-S Scale— Form 78 87 

13 (III) Responses of Mack and Larry on the A-S Scale 90 

1 (IV) Ethnocentrism Scale 105 

Negro Subscale ( N ) 

2 (IV) Ethnocentrism Scale 106 

Minority Subscale (M) 

3 (IV) Ethnocentrism Scale 108 

Patriotism Subscale (P) 

4 (IV) The Total Ethnocentrism Scale no 

Public Opinion Questionnaire E 

5 (IV) Reliability of the Ethnocentrism (E) Scale and Its Subscales 112 

6 (IV) Correlations of the E Subscales with Each Other and with the 

Total E Scale 113 

7 (IV) Means and Discriminatory Powers of the E-Scale Items 1 15 

8 (IV) The Second Form of the E Scale (Form 78 ) 117 

9 (IV) Reliability of the E Scale (Form 78 ) 119 

xxvii 



XXviii TABLES AND FIGURES 


10 (IV) Means and Discriminatory Powers of the E-Scale Items 

(Form 78) 

11 (IV) Correlations Between the A-S and E Scales (Initial Forms) 122 

12 (IV) Correlations Between the A-S and E Scales (Form 78) 123 

13 (IV) The Third Form of the E Scale (Form 60) 124 

14 (IV) Reliability of the E Scale (Form 60) 125 

15 (IV) Means and Discriminatory Powers of the E-Scale Items 

(Form 60) ll & 

16 (IV) The Fourth Form of the E Scale (Forms 45 and 40) 128 

17 (IV) Reliability of the E Scale (Forms 45 and 40) 

A. Groups Taking Form 45 (Ea+b) *34 

B. Groups Taking Form 40 (Ea) ! 35 

C. Groups Taking Both Forms 45 and 40 136 

18 (IV) Means and Discriminatory Powers of the E-Scale Items 

(Forms 45 and 40) G9 

19 (IV) Ethnocentrism Scale: Suggested Final Form 142 

20 (IV) Responses of Mack and Larry on the E Scale 143 

1 (V) The Initial Politico-Economic Conservatism Scale (Form 78) 158 

2 (V) Reliability of the PEC Scale (Form 78) 1 59 

3 (V) Means and Discriminatory Powers of the PEC-Scale Items 

(Form 78) 160 

4 (V) The Second Form of the Politico-Economic Conservatism 

(PEC) Scale (Form 60) 163 

5 (V) Reliability of the PEC Scale (Form 60) 165 

6 (V) Means and Discriminatory Powers of the PEC-Scale Items 

(Form 60) 7 i6 7 

7 (V) The Third Form of the Politico-Economic Conservatism 

(PEC) Scale (Forms 45^10) 169 

8 (V) Means and Standard Deviations of PEC-Scale Scores for 

Groups Taking Forms 45 and 40 17° 

9 (V) Means and Discriminatory Powers of the PEC-Scale Items 

(Forms 40 and 45) *74 

10 (V) Correlations of the A-S and E Scales with the PEC Scale (All 

Forms) I 79 

11 (V) Responses of Mack and Larry on the PEC Scale 183 

12 (V) Mean A-S or E Scores for Groups Showing Various Over- 

all Political Party Preferences 188 

13 (V) Mean A-S or E Scores for Groups Whose Fathers Have Vari- 

ous Political Party Preferences 19 1 

14 (V) Mean A-S or E Scores for Groups Showing Various Relations 

Between Subject’s and Father’s Political Preference 193 



TABLES AND FIGURES 


XXIX 


15 (V) Mean E Score for Various Organizations in the Form 40 

Sample *94 

16 (V) Mean E Score for Groups Having Various Maritime Union 

Affiliations (Maritime School Sample) i97 

17 (V) Mean E Scores for Groups Who Have Various Present 

Yearly Incomes *9 8 

18 (V) Mean A-S or E Scores for Groups Having Various Levels of 

Expected Yearly Income 200 

19 (V) Mean A-S or E Scores for Groups Whose Fathers Had Vari- 

ous Incomes 202 

20 (V) Mean A-S or E Scores for Groups Whose Fathers Have Vari- 

ous Occupations 20 5 

1 (VI) Mean A-S or E Scores of Various Religious Groups 210 

2 (VI) Mean A-S or E Scores for Groups Showing Various Fre- 

quencies of Church Attendance 212 

3 (VI) Mean A-S or E Scores for Groups Showing Various Rela- 

tions Between Father’s Religion and Mother’s Religion 214 

4 (VI) Mean A-S or E Scores for Groups Showing Various Rela- 

tions Between Subject’s Religion and Mother’s Religion 216 

5 (VI) Mean A-S Scores of Groups Giving Different Categories of 

Response to the Question: “How Important Are Religion 
and the Church?” 2I 7 

1 (VII) The F Scale: Form 78 226 

2 (VII) Reliability of the F Scale (Form 78) 2 43 

3 (VII) Means and Discriminatory Powers of the F-Scale Items 

(Form 78) 2 45 

4 (VII) The F Scale: Form 60 2 4 8 

5 (VII) Reliability of the F Scale (Form 60) 251 

6 (VII) Means and Discriminatory Powers of the F-Scale Items 

(Form 60) 2 53 

7 (VII) F-Scale Clusters: Forms 45 and 40 255 

8 (VII) Reliability of the F Scale (Forms 40 and 45) 258 

9 (VII) Means and Discriminatory Powers of the F-Scale Items 

(Forms 40 and 45) 2 6° 

10 (VII) Correlations of the F Scale with the A-S, E, and PEC Scales 

in the Several Forms of the Questionnaire 263 

11 (VII) Correlations of the F Scale with Each Half and with the 

Whole of the E Scale 2 ^4 

12 (VII) Mean F-Scale Scores of Groups Taking the Several Forms 

of the Questionnaire 2 66 

13 (VII) Responses of Mack and Larry on the F Scale (Form 78) 270 



XXX 


TABLES AND FIGURES 


1 (VIII) Correlations of the E and F Scales with Various Ability 

Tests (Maritime School Men) 282 

2 (VIII) Correlations of the E, F, and PEC Scales with the Otis 

Higher Form A Intelligence Test (Employment Service 
Veteran Men) 28 3 

3 (VIII) Mean Wechsler-Bellevue IQ Score for Each Quartile of 

the Ethnocentrism Scale (Psychiatric Clinic Men and 
Women) 1 2 ^3 

4 (VIII) Mean Number of Years of Education for Each Quartile of 

the Ethnocentrism Scale (Psychiatric Clinic Men and 
Women) 28 5 

5 (VIII) Mean E Score for Groups Having Various Years of Edu- 

cation (Maritime School Men) 286 

1 (IX) Survey of 20 Prejudiced and 20 Unprejudiced Men Inter- 

viewed 2 96 

2 (IX) Survey of 25 Prejudiced and 15 Unprejudiced Women Inter- 

viewed 2 97 

3 (IX) Representativeness of Interviewees in Terms of Scores on the 

Ethnocentrism Scale 2 9 8 

4 (IX) Age Distribution in Total Extreme Quartiles and Interviewees 299 

5 (IX) Religious Affiliation in Total Extreme Quartiles and Inter- 

viewees 2 99 

6 (IX) Political Outlook in Total Extreme Quartiles and Inter- 

viewees 3°° 

7 (IX) Reliability of Interview Ratings: Interrater Agreement on 

Nine Subjects 33° 

8 (IX) Interrater Agreement on Interview Ratings for Six Major 

Areas 33 2 

1 (X) Interview Ratings on Attitude Toward Parents and Concept 

of Family for 80 Subjects Scoring Extremely “High” or 
“Low” on the Ethnic Prejudice Questionnaire Scale 341 

2 (X) Interview Ratings on Concept of Childhood Environment for 

80 Subjects Scoring Extremely “High” or “Low” on the 
Ethnic Prejudice Questionnaire Scale 3 62 

3 (X) Interview Ratings on Childhood Events and Attitude Toward 

Siblings for 80 Subjects Scoring Extremely “High” or “Low” 
on the Ethnic Prejudice 'Questionnaire Scale 379 

1 (XI) Interview Ratings on Attitude Toward Sex for 80 Subjects 

Scoring Extremely “High” or “Low” on the Ethnic Preju- 

dice Questionnaire Scale 39 2 



TABLES AND FIGURES XXXI 

2 (XI) Interview Ratings on Attitude Toward People for 80 Sub- 

jects Scoring Extremely “High” or “Low” on the Ethnic 
Prejudice Questionnaire Scale 407 

3 (XI) Interview Ratings on Attitude Toward Present Self for 80 

Subjects Scoring Extremely “High” or “Low” on the Ethnic 
Prejudice Questionnaire Scale 424 

4 (XI) Interview Ratings on Attitude Toward Childhood Self for 

80 Subjects Scoring Extremely “High” or “Low” on the 
Ethnic Prejudice Questionnaire Scale 436 

1 (XII) Interview Ratings on Dynamic Character Structure for 80 

Subjects Scoring Extremely “High” or “Low” on the Ethnic 
Prejudice Questionnaire Scale 446 

2 (XII) Interview Ratings on Cognitive Personality Organization 

for 80 Subjects Scoring Extremely “High” or “Low” on the 
Ethnic Prejudice Questionnaire Scale 462 

1 (XIII) Composite Ratings (Means) for Major Areas of Study for 

“High” and “Low” Scoring Groups of Interviewees 469 

1 (XIV) Distribution of Thematic Apperception Test Sample 

Among the Several Groups Participating in the Study 491 

2 (XIV) Age Distribution of Subjects Receiving the Thematic Ap- 

perception Test 492 

3 (XIV) Distribution of Thematic Apperception Test Subjects with 

Respect to the Sex of the Examiners 492 

4 (XIV) Stimulus Values of the Ten Thematic Apperception Test 

Pictures 494 

5 (XIV) A Intensities of Need and Press Variables as Expressed in 

Stories Told by Men 500 

5 (XIV) B Intensities of Need and Press Variables as Expressed in 

Stories Told by Women 502 

6 (XIV) Comparison of the Scores of Mack and Larry on the 

Thematic Apperception Test with the Mean Scores of 
Prejudiced and Unprejudiced Men 539 

1 (XV) Scoring Reliability (Percentage Interrater Agreement) for 

the Eight Projective Questions 583 

2 (XV) Percentage Agreement Between Projective Question Scores 

and E-Scale Scores 586 

Figure 1 (XX) The Genetic Aspects of Mack’s Personality 801 



xxxii 

1 (XXI) 

2 (XXI) 

3 (XXI) 

4 (XXI) 

5 (XXI) 


TABLES AND FIGURES 

Identifying Data for Interviewees in the Prison Inmates 

Group _ ^ 2 ° 

Results on the E Scale from the Group of Prison Inmates 823 
Results on the PEC Scale from the Group of Prison Inmates 836 
Results on the F Scale from the Group of Prison Inmates 846 
Mean E- and F-Scale Scores of the Prison Inmates, Grouped 
According to Offense 


1 (XXII) 

2 (XXII) 

3 (XXII) 

4 (XXII) 

5 (XXII) 

6 (XXII) 


Reliability Data on the E Scale for Psychiatric Clinic Men 
and Women 

Incidence of Various Psychiatic Diagnoses in the Sample 
of Psychiatric Clinic Patients 

Percentage of Each E-Scale Quartile Falling Into Various 
Psychiatric Categories 

Percentage of the Upper and of the Lower Halves of the 
E-Scale Distribution Falling Into Various Psychiatric 
Categories 

Percentage of Neurotic Patients in Each E-Scale Quartile 
Showing Various Neurotic Features 

Percentage of Neurotic Patients in the Upper and Lower 
Halves of the E-Scale Distribution Showing Various Neu- 
rotic Features 


897 

899 


901 


902 


9° 3 


9°4 


Figure 1 (XXII) Average MMPI Profile for Non-Psychotic Psychi- 
atric Patients Falling Into Each Half of the E-Scale 
Distribution 


7 (XXII) 

8 (XXII) 

9 (XXII) 

10 (XXII) 

11 (XXII) 


Mean Scores on the Several Scales of the MMPI for Sub- 
jects Falling into Each Quartile and Into Each Half of the 
E-Scale Distribution. Nonpsychotic Male Patients 
Mean Scores on the Several Scales of the MMPI for Sub- 
jects Falling Into Each Quartile and Into Each Half of the 
E-Scale Distribution. Nonpsychotic Female Patients 
The Amount of Agreement Between Two Raters in Esti- 
mating a Subject’s Standing on the E Scale from an Analy- 
sis of His Intake Interview. Psychiatric Clinic Patients: 
Men and Women Combined 

The Amount of Agreement Between a Single Rater (A) 
and Seven Other Raters in Estimating Variables in Intake 
Interviews. Psychiatric Clinic Patients: Men and Women 
Combined 

The Amount of Agreement Between Rater A’s Estimate 
of High or Low Ethnocentrism, Based on Analysis of In- 
take Interviews, and Ethnocentrism as Measured by the 


9 1 4 

9 15 


927 


930 



TABLES AND FIGURES 


XXXI 11 


12 (XXII) 


13 (XXII) 


E Scale. Psychiatric Clinic Patients: Men and Women 
Combined 933 

The Amount of Agreement Between Estimates of Ethno- 
centrism, Based on Ratings of Single Variables from In- 
take Interviews, and Ethnocentrism as Measured by the 
E Scale. Psychiatric Clinic Patients: Men and Women 
Combined 934 

Summary of Data from the Rating of Intake Interviews. 

A. Reliability: Percentage Agreement Among Raters for 
Seven Variables. B. Validity: Percentage Agreement Be- 
tween Ratings and Score on the E Scale. Psychiatric Clinic 
Patients: Men and Women Combined 936 



CHAPTER I 


INTRODUCTION 


A. THE PROBLEM 

The research to be reported in this volume was guided by the following 
major hypothesis: that the political, economic, and social convictions of an 
individual often form a broad and coherent pattern, as if bound together 
by a “mentality” or “spirit,” and that this pattern is an expression of deep- 
lying trends in his personality. 

The major concern was with the potentially fascistic individual, one 
whose structure is such as to render him particularly susceptible to anti- 
democratic propaganda. We say “potential” because we have not studied 
individuals who were avowedly fascistic or who belonged to known fascist 
organizations. At the time when most of our data were collected fascism 
had just been defeated in war and, hence, we could not expect to find sub- 
jects who would openly identify themselves with it; yet there was no 
difficulty in finding subjects whose outlook was such as to indicate that 
they would readily accept fascism if it should become a strong or respectable 
social movement. 

In concentrating upon the potential fascist we do not wish to imply that 
other patterns of personality and ideology might not profitably be studied 
in the same way. It is our opinion, however, that no politico-social trend 
imposes a graver threat to our traditional values and institutions than does 
fascism, and that knowledge of the personality forces that favor its accept- 
ance may ultimately prove useful in combating it. A question may be raised 
as to why, if we wish to explore new resources for combating fascism, we 
do not give as much attention to the “potential antifascist.” The answer is 
that we do study trends that stand in opposition to fascism, but we do not 
conceive that they constitute any single pattern. It is one of the major 
findings of the present study that individuals who show extreme susceptibil- 
ity to fascist propaganda have a great deal in common. (They exhibit 
numerous characteristics that go together to form a “syndrome” although 
typical variations within this major pattern can be distinguished.) Indi- 
viduals who are extreme in the opposite direction are much more diverse. 
The task of diagnosing potential fascism and studying its determinants 
required techniques especially designed for these purposes; it could not be 


i 



2 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

asked of them that they serve as well for various other patterns. Neverthe- 
less, it was possible to distinguish several types of personality structure that 
seemed particularly resistant to antidemocratic ideas, and these are given 
due attention in later chapters. 

If a potentially fascistic individual exists, what, precisely, is he like. What 
goes to make up antidemocratic thought? What are the organizing forces 
within the person? If such a person exists, how commonly does he exist in 
our society? And if such a person exists, what have been the determinants 

and what the course of his development? 

These are questions upon which the present research was designed to 
throw some 'light. Though the notion that the potentially antidemocratic 
individual is a totality may be accepted as a plausible hypothesis some 
analysis is called for at the start. In most approaches to the problem of polit- 
ical types two essential conceptions may be distinguished: the conception of 
ideology and the conception of underlying needs in the person. Though the 
two may be thought of as forming an organized whole within the individua , 
they may nonetheless be studied separately. The same ideological trends 
may in different individuals have different sources, and the same personal 
needs may express themselves in different ideological trends. 

The term ideology is used in this book, in the way that is common in 
current literature, to stand for an organization of opinions, attitudes, and 
values— a way of thinking about man and society. We may speak of an indi- 
vidual’s total ideology or of his ideology with respect to different areas of 
social life: politics, economics, religion, minority groups, and so forth. Ideol- 
ogies have an existence independent of any single individual; and those 
which exist at a particular time are results both of historical processes and 
of contemporary social events. These ideologies have for different individ- 
uals, different degrees of appeal, a matter that depends upon the individual s 
needs and the degree to which these needs are being satisfied or frustrated. 

There are, to be sure, individuals who take unto themselves ideas from 
more than one existing ideological system and weave them into patterns that 
are more or less uniquely their own. It can be assumed, however, that when 
the opinions, attitudes, and values of numerous individuals are examined, 
common patterns will be discovered. These patterns may not in all cases 
correspond to the familiar, current ideologies,, but they will fulfill the defi 
nition of ideology given above and in each case be found to have a function 
within the over-all adjustment of the individual. 

The present inquiry into the nature of the potentially fascistic individual 
began with anti-Semitism in the focus of attention. The authors, in common 
with most social scientists, hold the view that anti-Semitism is based more 
largely upon factors in the subject and in his total situation than upon actual 
characteristics of Jews, and that one place to look for determinants of anti- 
Semitic opinions and attitudes is within the persons who express them. Since 



INTRODUCTION 


3 

this emphasis on personality required a focusing of attention on psychology 
rather than on sociology or history— though in the last analysis the three can 
be separated only artificially— there could be no attempt to account for the 
existence of anti-Semitic ideas in our society. The question was, rather, why is 
it that certain individuals accept these ideas while others do not? And since 
from the start the research was guided by the hypotheses stated above, it was 
supposed (i) that anti-Semitism probably is not a specific or isolated phe- 
nomenon but a part of a broader ideological framework, and (2) that an 
individual’s susceptibility to this ideology depends primarily upon his psy- 
chological needs. 

The insights and hypotheses concerning the antidemocratic individual, 
which are present in our general cultural climate, must be supported by a 
great deal of painstaking observation, and in many instances by quantifica- 
tion, before they can be regarded as conclusive. How can one say with 
assurance that the numerous opinions, attitudes, and values expressed by an 
individual actually constitute a consistent pattern or organized totality? 
The most intensive investigation of that individual would seem to be neces- 
sary. How can one say that opinions, attitudes, and values found in groups 
of people go together to form patterns, some of which are more common 
than others? There is no adequate way to proceed other than by actually 
measuring, in populations, a wide variety of thought contents and determin- 
ing by means of standard statistical methods which ones go together. 

To many social psychologists the scientific study of ideology, as it has 
been defined, seems a hopeless task. To measure with suitable accuracy a 
single, specific, isolated attitude is a long and arduous proceeding for both 
subject and experimenter. (It is frequently argued that unless the attitude 
is specific and isolated, it cannot properly be measured at all.) How then can 
we hope to survey within a reasonable period of time the numerous attitudes 
and ideas that go to make up an ideology? Obviously, some kind of selec- 
tion is necessary. The investigator must limit himself to what is most 
significant, and judgments of significance can only be made on the basis of 
theory. 

The theories that have guided the present research will be presented in 
suitable contexts later. Though theoretical considerations had a role at every 
stage of the work, a beginning had to be made with the objective study of 
the most observable and relatively specific opinions, attitudes, and values. 

Opinions, attitudes, and values, as we conceive of them, are expressed more 
or less openly in words. Psychologically they are “on the surface.” It must 
be recognized, however, that when it comes to such affect-laden questions 
as those concerning minority groups and current political issues, the degree 
of openness with which a person speaks will depend upon the situation in 
which he finds himself. There may be a discrepancy between what he says 
on a particular occasion and what he “really thinks.” Let us say that what 



4 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

he really thinks he can express in confidential discussion with his intimates. 
This much, which is still relatively superficial psychologically, may still be 
observed directly by the psychologist if he uses appropriate techmques- 
and this we have attempted to do. 

It is to be recognized, however, that the individual may have secret 
thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he 
can help it; he may have thoughts which he cannot admit to himself, and 
he may have thoughts which he does not express because they are so vague 
and ill-formed that he cannot put them into words. To gain access to these 
deeper trends is particularly important, for precisely here may lie the indi- 
vidual’s potential for democratic or antidemocratic thought and action in 

crucial situations. 

What people say and, to a lesser degree, what they really think depends 
very largely upon the climate of opinion in which they are living; but when 
that climate changes, some individuals adapt themselves much more quickly 
than others. If there should be a marked increase in antidemocratic propa- 
ganda, we should expect some people to accept and repeat it at once, others 
when it seemed that “everybody believed it,” and still others not at all. In 
other words, individuals differ in their susceptibility to antidemocratic propa- 
ganda, in their readiness to exhibit antidemocratic tendencies. It seems neces- 
sary to study ideology at this “readiness level” in order to gauge the potential 
for fascism in this country. Observers have noted that the amount of out- 
spoken anti-Semitism in pre-Hitler Germany was less than that in this coun- 
try at the present time; one might hope that the potentiality is less in this 
country, but this can be known only through intensive investigation, through 
the detailed survey of what is on the surface and the thorough probing of 

what lies beneath it. . . 

A question may be raised as to what is the degree of relationship between 

ideology and action. If an individual is making antidemocratic propaganda 
or engaging in overt attacks upon minority group members, it is usually 
assumed that his opinions, attitudes, and values are congruent with his 
action; but comfort is sometimes found in the thought that though another 
individual expresses antidemocratic ideas verbally, he does not, and perhaps 
will not, put them into overt action. Here, once again, there is a question of 
potentialities. Overt action, like open verbal expression, depends very largely 
upon the situation of the moment-something that is best described in socio- 
economic and political terms-but individuals differ very widely with respect 
to their readiness to be provoked into action. The study of this potential is 
a part of the study of the individual’s over-all ideology; to know what kinds 
and what intensities of belief, attitude, and value are likely to lead to action, 
and to know what forces within the individual serve as inhibitions upon, 
action are matters of the greatest practical importance. 

There seems little reason to doubt that ideology-in-readiness (ideological 



INTRODUCTION 


5 

receptivity) and ideology-in-words and in action are essentially the same stuff. 
The description of an individual’s total ideology must portray not only the 
organization on each level but organization among levels. What the indi- 
vidual consistently says in public, what he says when he feels safe from 
criticism, what he thinks but will not say at all, what he thinks but will not 
admit to himself, what he is disposed to think or to do when various kinds 
of appeal are made to him— all these phenomena may be conceived of as 
constituting a single structure. The structure may not be integrated, it may 
contain contradictions as well as consistencies, but it is organized, in the sense 
that the constituent parts are related in psychologically meaningful ways. 

In order to understand such a structure, a theory of the total personality 
is necessary. According to the theory that has guided the present research, 
personality is a more or less enduring organization of forces within the indi- 
vidual. These persisting forces of personality help to determine response in 
various situations, and it is thus largely to them that consistency of behavior 
—whether verbal or physical— is attributable. But behavior, however con- 
sistent, is not the same thing as personality; personality lies behind behavior 
and within the individual. The forces of personality are not responses but 
readinesses for response ; whether or not a readiness will issue in overt expres- 
sion depends not only upon the situation of the moment but upon what 
other readinesses stand in opposition to it. Personality forces which are in- 
hibited are on a deeper level than those which immediately and consistently 
express themselves in overt behavior. 

What are the forces of personality and what are the processes by which 
they are organized? For theory as to the structure of personality wejiave 
leaned most heavily upon Freud, while for a more or less systematic formu- 
lation of the more directly observable and measurable aspects of personality 
we have been guided primarily by academic psychology. The forces of 
personality are primarily needs (drives, wishes, emotional impulses) which 
vary from one individual to another in their quality, their intensity, their 
mode of gratification, and the objects of their attachment, and which interact 
with other needs in harmonious or conflicting patterns. There are primitive 
emotional needs, there are needs to avoid punishment and to keep the good 
will of the social group, there are needs to maintain harmony and integration 
within the self. 

Since it will be granted that opinions, attitudes, and values depend upon 
human needs, and since personality is essentially an organization of needs, 
then personality may be regarded as a determinant of ideological preferences. 
Personality is not, however, to be hypostatized as an ultimate determinant. 
Far from being something which is given in the beginning, which remains 
. fixed and acts upon the surrounding world, personality evolves under the 
impact of the social environment and can never be isolated from the social 
totality within which it occurs. According to the present theory, the effects 


6 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

of environmental forces in moulding the personality are, in general, the 
more profound the earlier in the life history of the individual they are brought 
to bear. The major influences upon personality development arise in the 
I course of child training as carried forward in a setting of family life. What 
happens here is profoundly influenced by economic and social factors. It is 
not only that each family in trying to rear its children proceeds according 
to the ways of the social, ethnic, and religious groups in which it has mem- 
bership, but crude economic factors affect directly the parents’ behavior 
toward the child. This means that broad changes in social conditions and 
| institutions will have a direct bearing upon the kinds of personalities that 
I . develop within a society. 

The present research seeks to discover correlations between ideology and 
sociological factors operating in the individual’s past— whether or not they 
continue to operate in his present. In attempting to explain these correlations 
the relationships between personality and ideology are brought into the 
, picture, the general approach being to consider personality as an agency 
j through which sociological influences upon ideology are mediated. If the 
I role of personality can be made clear, it should be possible better to under- 
[ stand which sociological factors are the most crucial ones and in what ways 
| they achieve their effects. 

Although personality is a product of the social environment of the past, 
it is not, once it has developed, a mere object of the contemporary environ- 
, ment. What has developed is a structure within the individual, something 
j which is capable of self-initiated action upon the social environment and of 
selection with respect to varied impinging stimuli, something which though 
always modifiable is frequently very resistant to fundamental change. This 
conception is necessary to explain consistency of behavior in widely varying 
situations, to explain the persistence of ideological trends in the face of 
f contradicting facts and radically altered social conditions, to explain why 
people in the same sociological situation have different or even conflicting 
views on social issues, and why it is that people whose behavior has been 
changed through psychological manipulation lapse into their old ways as 
soon as the agencies of manipulation are removed. 

The conception of personality structure is the best safeguard against the 
inclination to attribute persistent trends in the individual to something 
“innate” or “basic” or “racial” within him. The Nazi allegation that natural, 
biological traits decide the total being of a person would not have been such 
a successful political device had it not been possible to point to numerous 
instances of relative fixity in human behavior and to challenge those who 
thought to explain them on any basis other than a biological one. Without 
the conception of personality structure, writers whose approach rests upon 
the assumption of infinite human flexibility and responsiveness to the social 
situation of the moment have not helped matters by referring persistent 



INTRODUCTION 


7 

trends which they could not approve to “confusion” or “psychosis” or evil 
under one name or another. There is, of course, some basis for describing 
as “pathological” patterns of behavior which do not conform with the most 
common, and seemingly most lawful, responses to momentary stimuli. But 
this is to use the term pathological in the very narrow sense of deviation from 
the average found in a particular context and, what is worse, to suggest that 
everything in the personality structure is to be put under this heading. 
Actually, personality embraces variables which exist widely in the popula- 
tion and have lawful relations one to another. Personality patterns that have 
been dismissed as “pathological” because they were not in keeping with the 
most common manifest trends or the most dominant ideals within a society, 
have on closer investigation turned out to be but exaggerations of what was 
almost universal below the surface in that society. What is “pathological” 
today may with changing social conditions become the dominant trend of 
tomorrow. 

It seems clear then that an adequate approach to the problems before us 
must take into account both fixity and flexibility; it must regard the two 
not as mutually exclusive categories but as the extremes of a single continuum 
along which human characteristics may be placed, and it must provide a 
basis for understanding the conditions which favor the one extreme or the 
other. Personality is a concept to account for relative permanence. But it 
may be emphasized again that personality is mainly a potential; it is a readi- 
ness for behavior rather than behavior itself; although it consists in disposi- 
tions to behave in certain ways, the behavior that actually occurs will always 
depend upon the objective situation. Where the concern is with antidemo- 
cratic trends, a delineation of the conditions for individual expression re- 
quires an understanding of the total organization of society. 

It has been stated that the personality structure may be such as to render 
the individual susceptible to antidemocratic propaganda. It may now be 
asked what are the conditions under which such propaganda would increase 
in pitch and volume and come to dominate in press and radio to the exclusion 
of contrary ideological stimuli, so that what is now potential would become 
actively manifest. The answer must be sought not in any single personality 
nor in personality factors found in the mass of people, but in processes at 
work in society itself. It seems well understood today that whether or not 
antidemocratic propaganda is to become a dominant force in this country 
depends primarily upon the situation of the most powerful economic inter- 
ests, upon whether they, by conscious design or not, make use of this device 
for maintaining their dominant status. This is a matter about which the great 
majority of people would have little to say. 

The present research, limited as it is to the hitherto largely neglected 
psychological aspects of fascism, does not concern itself with the production 
of propaganda. It focuses attention, rather, upon the consumer, the indi- 



8 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

vidual for whom the propaganda is designed. In so doing it attempts to take 
into account not only the psychological structure of the individual but the 
total objective situation in which he lives. It makes the assumption that 
people in general tend to accept political and social programs which they 
believe will serve their economic interests. What these interests are depends 
in each case upon the individual’s position in society as defined in economic 
and sociological terms. An important part of the present research, therefore, 
was the attempt to discover what patterns of socioeconomic factors are asso- 
ciated with receptivity, and with resistance, to antidemocratic propaganda. 

At the same time, however, it was considered that economic motives in 
the individual may not have the dominant and crucial role that is often 
ascribed to them. If economic self-interest were the only determinant of 
opinion, we should expect people of the same socioeconomic status to have 
very similar opinions, and we should expect opinion to vary in a meaningful 
way from one socioeconomic grouping to another. Research has not given 
very sound support for these expectations. There is only the most general 
similarity of opinion among people of the same socioeconomic status, and 
the exceptions are glaring; while variations from one socioeconomic group 
to another are rarely simple or clear-cut. To explain why it is that people 
of the same socioeconomic status so frequently have different ideologies, 
while people of a different status often have very similar ideologies, we must 
take account of other than purely economic needs. 

More than this, it is becoming increasingly plain that people very fre- 
quently do not behave in such a way as to further their material interests, 
even when it is clear to them what these interests are. The resistance of 
white-collar workers to organization is not due to a belief that the union will 
not help them economically; the tendency of the small businessman to side 
with big business in most economic and political matters cannot be due 
entirely to a belief that this is the way to guarantee his economic indepen- 
dence. In instances such as these the individual seems not only not to con- 
sider his material interests, but even to go against them. It is as if he were 
thinking in terms of a larger group identification, as if his point of view were 
determined more by his need to support this group and to suppress opposite 
ones than by rational consideration of his own interests. Indeed, it is with 
a sense of relief today that one is assured that a group conflict is merely a 
clash of economic interests— that each side is merely out to “do” the other— 
and not a struggle in which deep-lying emotional drives have been let loose. 
When it comes to the ways in which people appraise the social world, irra- 
tional trends stand out glaringly. One may conceive of a professional man 
who opposes the immigration of Jewish refugees on the ground that this 
will increase the competition with which he has to deal and so decrease his 
income. However undemocratic this may be, it is at least rational in a limited 
sense. But for this man to go on, as do most people who oppose Jews on 



INTRODUCTION 


9 

occupational grounds, and accept a wide variety of opinions, many of which 
are contradictory, about Jews in general, and to attribute various ills of the 
world to them, is plainly illogical. And it is just as illogical to praise all Jews 
in accordance with a “good” stereotype of them. Hostility against groups 
that is based upon real frustration, brought about by members of that group, 
undoubtedly exists, but such frustrating experiences can hardly account for 
the fact that prejudice is apt to be generalized. Evidence from the present 
study confirms what has often been indicated: that a man who is hostile 
toward one minority group is very likely to be hostile against a wide variety 
of others. There is no conceivable rational basis for such generalization; and, 
what is more striking, prejudice against, or totally uncritical acceptance of, 
a particular group often exists in the absence of any experience with mem- 
bers of that group. The objective situation of the individual seems an unlikely 
source of such irrationality; rather we should seek where psychology has 
already found the sources of dreams, fantasies, and misinterpretations of the 
world— that is, in the deep-lying needs of the personality. 

Another aspect of the individual’s situation which we should expect to 
affect his ideological receptivity is his membership in social groups— occu- 
pational, fraternal, religious, and the like. For historical and sociological 
reasons, such groups favor and promulgate, whether officially or unofficially, 
different patterns of ideas. There is reason to believe that individuals, out of 
their needs to conform and to belong and to believe and through such devices 
as imitation and conditioning, often take over more or less ready-made the 
opinions, attitudes, and values that are characteristic of the groups in which 
they have membership. To the extent that the ideas which prevail in such a 
group are implicitly or explicitly antidemocratic, the individual group mem- 
ber might be expected to be receptive to propaganda having the same 
general direction. Accordingly, the present research investigates a variety 
of group memberships with a view to what general trends of thought— and 
how much variability— might be found in each. 

It is recognized, however, that a correlation between group membership 
and ideology may be due to different kinds of determination in different 
individuals. In some cases it might be that the individual merely repeats 
opinions which are taken for granted in his social milieu and which he has 
no reason to question; in other cases it might be that the individual has chosen 
to join a particular group because it stood for ideals with which he was 
already in sympathy. In modern society, despite enormous communality in 
basic culture, it is rare for a person to be subjected to only one pattern of 
ideas, after he is old enough for ideas to mean something to him. Some selec- 
tion is usually made, according, it may be supposed, to the needs of his 
personality. Even when individuals are exposed during their formative years 
almost exclusively to a single, closely knit pattern of political, economic, 
social, and religious ide^s, it is found that some conform while Others rebel, 



IO THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

and it seems proper to inquire whether personality factors do not make the 
difference. The soundest approach, it would seem, is to consider that in the 
determination of ideology, as in the determination of any behavior, there is 
a situational factor and a personality factor, and that a careful weighing of 
the role of each' will yield the most accurate prediction. 

Situational factors, chiefly economic condition and social group member- 
ships, have been studied intensively in recent researches on opinion and atti- 
tude, while the more inward, more individualistic factors have not received 
the attention they deserve. Beyond this, there is still another reason why 
the present study places particular emphasis upon the personality. Fascism, 
in order to be successful as a political movement, must have a mass basis. It 
must secure not only the frightened submission but the active cooperation 
of the great majority of the people. Since by its very nature it favors the 
few at the expense of the many, it cannot possibly demonstrate that it will 
so improve the situation of most people that their real interests will be served. 
It must therefore make its major appeal, not to rational self-interest, but to 
emotional needs-often to the most primitive and irrational wishes and fears. 
If it be argued that fascist propaganda fools people into believing that their 
lot will be improved, then the question arises: Why are they so easily fooled? 
Because, it may be supposed, of their personality structure; because of long- 
established patterns of hopes and aspirations, fears and anxieties that dispose 
them to certain beliefs and make them resistant to others. The task of fascist 
propaganda, in other words, is rendered easier to the degree that antidemo- 
cratic potentials already exist in the great mass of people. It may be granted 
that in Germany economic conflicts and dislocations within the society were 
such that for this reason alone the triumph of fascism was sooner or later 
inevitable; but the Nazi leaders did not act as if they believed this to be so; 
instead they acted as if it were necessary at every moment to take into 
account the psychology of the people-to activate every ounce of their anti- 
democratic potential, to compromise with them, to stamp out the slightest 
spark of rebellion. It seems apparent that any attempt to appraise the chances 
of a fascist triumph in America must reckon with the potential existing in 
the character of the people. Here lies not only the susceptibility to antidemo- 
cratic propaganda but the most dependable sources of resistance to it. 

The present writers believe that it is up to the people to decide whether 
or not this country goes fascist. It is assumed that knowledge of the nature 
and extent of antidemocratic potentials will indicate programs for demo- 
cratic action. These programs should not be limited to devices for manipu- 
lating people in such a way that they will behave more democratically, but 
they should be devoted to increasing the kind of self-awareness and self- 
determination that makes any kind of manipulation impossible. There is one 
explanation for the existence of an individual’s ideology that has not so far 
been considered: that it is the view of the world which a reasonable man, 



INTRODUCTION 


n 

with some understanding of the role of such determinants as those discussed 
above, and with complete access to the necessary facts, will organize for 
himself. This conception, though it has been left to the last, is of crucial 
importance for a sound approach to ideology. Without it we should have 
to share the destructive view, which has gained some acceptance in the 
modern world, that since all ideologies, all philosophies, derive from non- 
rational sources there is no basis for saying that one has more merit than 
another. 

But the rational system of an objective and thoughtful man is not a thing 
apart from personality. Such a system is still motivated. What is distinguish- 
ing in its sources is mainly the kind of personality organization from which 
it springs. It might be said that a mature personality (if we may for the 
moment use this term without defining it) will come closer to achieving a 
rational system of thought than will an immature one; but a personality is 
no less dynamic and no less organized for being mature, and the task of 
describing the structure of this personality is not different in kind from the 
task of describing any other personality. According to theory, the person- 
ality variables which have most to do with determining the objectivity and 
rationality of an ideology are those which belong to the ego, that part of the 
personality which appreciates reality, integrates the other parts, and operates 
with the most conscious awareness. 

It is the ego that becomes aware of and takes responsibility for nonra- 
tional forces operating within the personality. This is the basis for our belief 
that the object of knowing what are the psychological determinants of 
ideology is that men can become more reasonable. It is not supposed, of 
course, that this will eliminate differences of opinion. The world is suffi- 
ciently complex and difficult to know, men have enough real interests that 
are in conflict with the real interests of other men, there are enough ego- 
accepted differences in personality to insure that arguments about politics, 
economics, and religion will never grow dull. Knowledge of the psycholog- 
ical determinants of ideology cannot tell us what is the truest ideology; it 
can only remove some of the barriers in the way of its pursuit. 

B. A4ETHODOLOGY 

1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE METHOD 

To attack the problems conceptualized above required methods for de- 
scribing and measuring ideological trends and methods for exposing person- 
ality, the contemporary situation, and the social background. A particular 
methodological challenge was imposed by the conception of levels in the 
person; this made it necessary to devise techniques for surveying opinions, 
attitudes, and values that were on the surface, for revealing ideological 



XI the authoritarian personality 

trends that were more or less inhibited and reached the surface only in 
indirect manifestations, and for bringing to light personality forces that lay 
in the subject’s unconscious. And since the major concern was with patterns 
of dynamically related factors— something that requires study of the total 
individual— it seemed that the proper approach was through intensive clinical 
studies. The significance and practical importance of such studies could not 
be gauged, however, until there was knowledge of how far it was possible 
to generalize from them. Thus it was necessary to perform group studies as 
well as individual studies, and to find ways and means for integrating the two. 

Individuals were studied by means of interviews and special clinical tech- 
niques for revealing underlying wishes, fears, and defenses; groups were 
studied by means of questionnaires. It was not expected that the clinical 
studies would be as complete or profound as some which have already been 
performed, primarily by psychoanalysts, nor that the questionnaires would 
be more accurate than any now employed by social psychologists. It was 
hoped, however— indeed it was necessary to our purpose— that the clinical 
material could be conceptualized in such a way as to permit its being quan- 
tified and carried over into group studies, and that the questionnaires could 
be brought to bear upon areas of response ordinarily left to clinical study. 
The attempt was made, in other words, to bring methods of traditional social 
psychology into the service of theories and concepts from the newer dy- 
namic theory of personality and in so doing to make “depth psychological 
phenomena more amenable to mass-statistical treatment, and to make quan- 
titative surveys of attitudes and opinions more meaningful psychologically. 

In the attempt to integrate clinical and group studies, the two were car- 
ried on in close conjunction. When the individual was in the focus of atten- 
tion, the aim was to describe in detail his pattern of opinions, attitudes, and 
values and to understand the dynamic factors underlying it, and on this basis 
to design significant questions for use with groups of subjects. When the 
group was in the focus of attention, the aim was to discover what opinions, 
attitudes, and values commonly go together and what patterns of factors 
in the life histories and in the contemporary situations of the subjects were 
commonly associated with each ideological constellation; this afforded a basis 
on which to select individuals for more intensive study: commanding first 
attention were those who exemplified the common patterns and in whom it 
could be supposed that the correlated factors were dynamically related. 

In order to study potentially antidemocratic individuals it was necessary 
first to identify them. Hence a start was made by constructing a question- 
naire and having it filled out anonymously by a large group of people. This 
questionnaire contained, in addition to numerous questions of fact about 
the subject’s past and present life, a variety of antidemocratic statements 
with which the subjects were invited to agree or disagree. A number of 
individuals who showed the greatest amount of agreement with these state- 



INTRODUCTION 


!3 


ments— and, by way of contrast, some who showed the most disagreement 
or, in some instances, were most neutral— were then studied by means of 
interviews and other clinical techniques. On the basis of these individual 
studies the questionnaire was revised, and the whole procedure repeated. 

The interview was used in part as a check upon the validity of the ques- 
tionnaire, that is to say, it provided a basis for judging whether people who 
obtained the highest antidemocratic scores on the questionnaire were usually 
those who, in a confidential relationship with another person, expressed anti- 
democratic sentiments with the most intensity. What was more important, 
however, the clinical studies gave access to the deeper personality factors 
behind antidemocratic ideology and suggested the means for their investi- 
gation on a mass scale. With increasing knowledge of the underlying trends 
of which prejudice was an expression, there was increasing familiarity with 
various other signs or manifestations by which these trends could be recog- 
nized. The task then was to translate these manifestations into questionnaire 
items for use in the next group study. Progress lay in finding more and more 
reliable indications of the central personality forces and in showing with 
increasing clarity the relations of these forces to antidemocratic ideological 
expression. 


2. THE TECHNIQUES 

The questionnaires and clinical techniques employed in the study may 
be described briefly as follows: 

a. The Questionnaire Method. The questionnaires were always pre- 
sented in mimeographed form and filled out anonymously by subjects in 
groups. Each questionnaire included (i) factual questions, (2) opinion- 
attitude scales, and (3) “projective” (open answer) questions. 

1. The factual questions had to do mainly with past and present group 
memberships: church preference and attendance, political party, vocation, 
income, and so on. It was assumed that the answers could be taken at their 
face value. In selecting the questions, we were guided at the start by hypoth- 
eses concerning the sociological correlates of ideology; as the study pro- 
gressed we depended more and more upon experience with interviewees. 

2. Opinion-attitude scales were used from the start in order to obtain quan- 
titative estimates of certain surface ideological trends: anti-Semitism, ethno- 
centrism, politico-economic conservatism. Later, a scale was developed for 
the measurement of antidemocratic tendencies in the personality itself. 

Each scale was a collection of statements, with each of which the subject 
was asked to express the degree of his agreement or disagreement. Each 
statement concerned some relatively specific opinion, attitude, or value, and 
the basis for grouping them within a particular scale was the conception that 
taken together they expressed a single general trend. 



14 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

The general trends to which the scales pertained were conceived very 
broadly, as complex systems of thought about wide areas of social living. 
To define these trends empirically it was necessary to obtain responses to 
many specific issues— enough to “cover” the area mapped out conceptually— 
and to show that each of them bore some relation to the whole. 

This approach stands in contrast to the public opinion poll: whereas the 
poll is interested primarily in the distribution of opinion with respect to a 
particular issue, the present interest was to inquire, concerning a particular 
opinion, with what other opinions and attitudes it was related. The plan was 
to determine the existence of broad ideological trends, to develop instruments 
for their measurement, and then to inquire about their distribution within 
larger populations. 

The approach to an ideological area was to appraise its grosser features 
first and its finer or more specific features later. The aim was to gain a view 
of the “over-all picture” into which smaller features might later be fitted, 
rather than to obtain highly precise measures of small details in the hope 
that these might eventually add up to something significant. Although this 
emphasis upon breadth and inclusiveness prevented the attainment of the 
highest degree of precision in measurement, it was nevertheless possible to 
develop each scale to a point where it met the currently accepted statistical 
standards. 

Since each scale had to cover a broad area, without growing so long as to 
try the patience of the subjects, it was necessary to achieve a high degree 
of efficiency. The task was to formulate items which would cover as much 
as possible of the many-sided phenomenon in question. Since each of the 
trends to be measured was conceived as having numerous components or 
aspects, there could be no duplication of items; instead it was required that 
each item express a different feature— and where possible, several features— 
of the total system. The degree to which items within a scale will “hang 
together” statistically, and thus give evidence that a single, unified trait is 
being measured, depends primarily upon the surface similarity of the items- 
the degree to which they all say the same thing. The present items, obviously, 
could not be expected to cohere in this fashion; all that could be required 
statistically of them was that they correlate to a reasonable degree with the 
total scale. Conceivably, a single component of one of the present systems 
could be regarded as itself a relatively general trend, the precise measure- 
ment of which would require the use of numerous more specific items. As 
indicated above, however, such concern with highly specific, statistically 
“pure” factors was put aside, in favor of an attempt to gain a dependable 
estimate of an over-all system, one which could then be related to other 
over-all systems in an approach to the totality of major trends within the 
individual. 

One might inquire why, if we wish to know the intensity of some ideolog- 



INTRODUCTION 


*5 

ical pattern— such as anti-Semitism— within the individual, we do not ask him 
directly, after defining what we mean. The answer, in part, is that the phe- 
nomenon to be measured is so complex that a single response would not go 
very far toward revealing the important differences among individuals. 
Moreover, anti-Semitism, ethno centrism, and politico-economic reactionism 
or radicalism are topics about which many people are not prepared to speak 
with complete frankness. Thus, even at this surface ideological level it was 
necessary to employ a certain amount of indirectness. Subjects were never 
told what was the particular concern of the questionnaire, but only that 
they were taking part in a “survey of opinions about various issues of the 
day.” To support this view of the proceedings, items belonging to a partic- 
ular scale were interspersed with items from other scales in the questionnaire. 
It was not possible, of course, to avoid statements prejudicial to minority 
groups, but care was taken in each case to allow the subject “a way out,” 
that is to say, to make it possible for him to agree with such a statement while 
maintaining the belief that he was not “prejudiced” or “undemocratic.” 

Whereas the scales for measuring surface ideological trends conform, in 
general, with common practice in sociopsychological research, the scale for 
measuring potentially antidemocratic trends in the personality represents a 
new departure. The procedure was to bring together in a scale items which, 
by hypothesis and by clinical experience, could be regarded as “giveaways” 
of trends which lay relatively deep within the personality, and which con- 
stituted a disposition to express spontaneously (on a suitable occasion), or 
to be influenced by, fascist ideas. 

The statements in this scale were not different in form from those which 
made up the surface ideology scales; they were direct expressions of opinion, 
of attitudes, or of value with respect to various areas of social living— but 
areas not usually touched upon in systematic presentations of a politico- 
socioeconomic point of view. Always interspersed with statements from 
other scales, they conveyed little or nothing to the subject as to the nature 
of the real question being pursued. They were, in the main, statements so 
designed as to serve as rationalizations for irrational tendencies. Two state- 
ments included in this scale were the following: (a) “Nowadays with so 
many different kinds of people moving around so much and mixing together 
so freely, one has to be especially careful to protect himself against infection 
and disease” and (b) “Homosexuality is an especially rotten form of delin- 
quency and ought to be severely punished.” That people who agree with 
one of these statements show a tendency to agree with the other, and that 
people who agree with these two statements tend to agree with open anti- 
democratic statements, e.g., that members of some minority group are basic- 
ally inferior, is hardly to be explained on the basis of any obvious logical 
relation among the statements. It seems necessary, rather, to conceive of 
some underlying central trend which expresses itself in these different ways. 



1 6 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


Different people might, of course, give the same response to a statement 
such as the above for different reasons; since it was necessary to give the 
statements at least a veneer of rationality, it was natural to expect that the 
responses of some people would be determined almost entirely by the rational 
aspect rather than by some underlying emotional disposition. For this reason 
it was necessary to include a large number of scale items and to be guided 
by the general trend of response rather than by the response to a single 
statement; for a person to be considered potentially antidemocratic in his 
underlying dynamic structure, he had to agree with a majority of these 
scale items. 

The development of the present scale proceeded in two ways: first, by 
finding or formulating items which, though they had no manifest connec- 
tion with open antidemocratic expressions, were nevertheless highly cor- 
related with them; and second, by demonstrating that these “indirect” items 
were actually expressions of antidemocratic potential within the personality 
as known from intensive clinical study. 

3. Projective Questions, like most other projective techniques, present the 
subject with ambiguous and emotionally toned stimulus material. This ma- 
terial is designed to allow a maximum of variation in response from one 
subject to another and to provide channels through which relatively deep 
personality processes may be expressed. The questions are not ambiguous in 
their formal structure, but in the sense that the answers are at the level of 
emotional expression rather than at the level of fact and the subject is not 
aware of their implications. The responses always have to be interpreted, 
and their significance is known when their meaningful relations to other 
psychological facts about the subject have been demonstrated. One projec- 
tive question was, “What would you do if you had only six months to live, 
and could do anything you wanted?” An answer to this question was not 
regarded as a statement of what the subject would probably do in actuality, 
but rather an expression having to do with his values, conflicts, and the like. 
We asked ourselves if this expression was not in keeping with those 
elicited by other projective questions and by statements in the personality 
scale. 

Numerous projective questions were tried in the early stages of the study, 
and from among them eight were selected for use with most of the larger 
groups of subjects: they were the questions which taken together gave the 
broadest view of the subject’s personality trends and correlated most highly 
with surface ideological patterns. 

b. Clinical Techniques, i. The interview was divided roughly into an 
ideological section and a clinical-genetic section. In the first section the aim 
was to induce the subject to talk as spontaneously and as freely as possible 
about various broad ideological topics: politics, religion, minority groups, 



INTRODUCTION 


l 7 

income, and vocation. Whereas in the questionnaire the subject was limited 
to the topics there presented and could express himself only by means of 
the rating scheme offered, here it was important to know what topics he 
would bring up of his own accord and with what intensity of feeling he 
would spontaneously express himself. As indicated above, this material af- 
forded a means for insuring that the questionnaire, in its revised forms, more 
or less faithfully represented “what people were saying”— the topics that 
were on their minds and the forms of expression that came spontaneously 
to them-and provided a valid index of antidemocratic trends. The interview 
covered, of course, a much wider variety of topics, and permitted the ex- 
pression of more elaborated and differentiated opinions, attitudes, and values, 
than did the questionnaire. Whereas the attempt was made to distill from 
the interview material what seemed to be of the most general significance 
and to arrange it for inclusion in the questionnaire, there was material left 
over to be exploited by means of individual case studies, qualitative analyses, 
and crudely quantitative studies of the interview material by itself. 

The clinical-genetic section of the interview sought to obtain, first, more 
factual material about the subject’s contemporary situation and about his 
past than could be got from the questionnaire; second, the freest possible 
expressions of personal feelings, of beliefs, wishes, and fears concerning him- 
self and his situation and concerning such topics as parents, siblings, friends, 
and sexual relationships; and third, the subject’s conceptions of his childhood 
environment and of his childhood self. 

The interview was conducted in such a way that the material gained from 
it would permit inferences about the deeper layers of the subject’s person- 
ality. The technique of the interview will be described in detail later. Suffice 
it to say here that it followed the general pattern of a psychiatric interview 
that is inspired by a dynamic theory of personality. The interviewer was 
aided by a Comprehensive interview schedule which underwent several 
revisions during the course of the study, as experience taught what were the 
most significant underlying questions and what were the most efficient means 
for evoking material bearing upon them. 

The interview material was used for estimation of certain common vari- 
ables lying within the theoretical framework of the study but not accessible 
to the other techniques. Interview material also provided the main basis for 
individual case studies, bearing upon the interrelationships among all the 
significant factors operating within the antidemocratic individual. 

2. The Thematic Apperception Test is a well-known projective technique 
in which the subject is presented with a series of dramatic pictures and asked 
to tell a story about each of them. The material he produces can, when inter- 
preted, reveal a great deal about his underlying wishes, conflicts, and mech- 
anisms of defense. The technique was modified slightly to suit the present 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


18 

purposes. The material was analyzed quantitatively in terms of psychological 
variables which are found widely in the population and which were readily 
brought into relation with other variables of the study. As a part of the case 
study of an individual an analysis in terms of more unique personality vari- 
ables was made, the material here being considered in close conjunction with 
findings from the interview. 

Though designed to approach different aspects of the person, the several 
techniques actually were closely related conceptually one to another. All of 
them permitted quantification and interpretation in terms of variables which 
fall within a unified theoretical system. Sometimes two techniques yielded 
measures of the same variables, and sometimes different techniques were 
focused upon different variables. In the former case the one technique gave 
some indication of the validity of the other; in the latter case the adequacy 
of a technique could be gauged by its ability to produce measures that were 
meaningfully related to all the others. Whereas a certain amount of repeti- 
tion was necessary to insure validation, the main aim was to fill out a broad 
framework and achieve a maximum of scope. 

The theoretical approach required in each case either that a new technique 
be designed from the ground up or that an existing one be modified to suit 
the particular purpose. At the start, there was a theoretical conception of 
what was to be measured and certain sources— to be described later— which 
could be drawn upon in devising the original questionnaire form and the 
preliminary interview schedule. Each technique then evolved as the study 
progressed. Since each was designed specifically for this study, they could 
be changed at will as understanding increased, and since an important pur- 
pose of the study was the development and testing of effective instruments 
for diagnosing potential fascism, there was no compulsion to repeat without 
modification a procedure just in order to accumulate comparable data. So 
closely interrelated were the techniques that what was learned from any 
one of them could be applied to the improvement of any other. Just as the 
clinical techniques provided a basis for enriching the several parts of the 
questionnaire, so did the accumulating quantitative results indicate what 
ought to be concentrated upon in the interview; and just as the analysis of 
scale data suggested the existence of underlying variables which might be 
approached by means of projective techniques, so did the responses on 
projective techniques suggest items for inclusion in the scales. 

The evolution of techniques was expressed both in expansion and in con- 
traction. Expansion was exemplified in the attempt to bring more and more 
aspects of antidemocratic ideology into the developing picture and in the 
attempt to explore enough aspects of the potentially antidemocratic per- 
sonality so that there was some grasp of the totality. Contraction took place 
continuously in the quantitative procedures as increasing theoretical clarity 



INTRODUCTION 1 9 

permitted a boiling down so that the same crucial relationships could be 
demonstrated with briefer techniques. 

C. PROCEDURES IN THE COLLECTION OF DATA 
1. THE GROUPS STUDIED 

a. The Beginning with College Students. There were enough prac- 
tical reasons alone to determine that the present study, which at the begin- 
ning had limited resources and limited objectives, should start with college 
students as research subjects: they were available for the asking, whether 
singly or in groups, they would cooperate willingly, and they could be 
reached for retesting without much difficulty. At the same time, other con- 
siderations favored the use of college students in a study of ideology. In the 
first place, the intellectual and educational level is high enough so that 
there needed to be relatively little restriction with respect to the number and 
nature of issues that might be raised— a very important matter in a study that 
emphasized breadth and inclusiveness. One could be fairly certain that col- 
lege students had opinions about most of the various topics to be considered. 
In the second place, there could be relative certainty that all the subjects 
understood the terms of the questions in the same way and that the same 
responses had uniform significance. In the third place, however large a 
population one might be able to sample he would probably find that most 
of his generalizations had in any case to be limited to various relatively 
homogeneous subclassifications of the total group studied; college students 
form one group that is relatively quite homogeneous with respect to factors 
that might be expected to influence ideology. And they represent an im- 
portant sector of the population, both through their family connections and 
through their prospective leadership in the community. 

It is obvious, however, that a study which used only college students as 
subjects would be seriously limited in its general significance. Of what 
larger population could a group of students at a state university be regarded 
as an adequate sample? Would findings on this sample hold for all the stu- 
dents at this university? For college students generally? For young people 
of the middle class? It depends upon what kind of generalization is to be 
made. Generalizations about the distribution of particular opinions or about 
the average amount of agreement with this or that statement— the kind of in- 
formation sought in poll studies— could hardly go beyond the students at 
the university where the survey was made. Results from an Eastern uni- 
versity or from a privately endowed institution might be quite different. 
The present concern, however, was not so much with questions of dis- 
tribution as with questions of relationship. For example, there was less 



20 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


interest in what per cent of the general population would agree that “labor 
unions have grown too powerful” and that “there are too many Jews in 
government agencies” than in whether or not there was a general relation- 
ship between these two opinions. For the study of how opinions, attitudes, 
and values are organized within the individual, college students had a great 
deal to offer, particularly in the early stages of the work where the emphasis 
was upon improving techniques and obtaining first approximations of gen- 
eral relationships. This work could proceed without hindrance so long as 
the factors to be studied were present, and varied sufficiently widely from 
one individual to another. In this regard, the limitations of the college 
sample were that the relatively high intellectual and educational level de- 
creased the number of extremely prejudiced individuals, and that some of 
the factors which were presumed to influence prejudice were rarely or 
never present. 

These considerations made it necessary to study various other groups of 
subjects. As it turned out, the strength of the various ideological trends was 
found to vary widely from one group to another, while the relationships 
found in the college group were very similar to those found elsewhere. 

b. The General Noncollege Population from Which Our Subjects 
Were Drawn. When it became possible through increased resources to 
expand the scope of the study, there began an attempt to obtain as subjects 
a wide variety of adult Americans. The aim was to examine people who pos- 
sessed in different degrees as many as possible of the sociological variables 
presumed to be relevant to the study-political, religious, occupational, in- 
come, and social group memberships. A list of all the groups (college and 
noncollege) from whom questionnaires were collected is given in Table 

iQ)- . ... 

The group within which a subject was functioning at the time he filled 
out the questionnaire was, of course, not necessarily the most important or 
representative of the various groups to which he belonged. The questionnaire 
itself was relied upon to give information about the group memberships 
deemed most relevant to the study, and subjects could be categorized on 
this basis regardless of the group through which the questionnaires were 
collected. 

The emphasis throughout was upon obtaining different kinds of subjects, 
enough to insure wide variability of opinion and attitude and adequate 
coverage of the factors supposed to influence ideology. The subjects are 
in no sense a random sample of the noncollege population nor, since there 
was no attempt to make a sociological analysis of the community in which 
they lived, can they be regarded as a representative sample. The progress of 
the study was not in the direction of broadening the basis for generalization 
about larger populations, but rather toward the more intensive investigation 



INTRODUCTION 


2 I 


TABLE i (I) 

Groups From Whom Questionnaires Were Collected" 

No. of 
Cases 


I. Form 7# (January to May, 1945) 

University of California Public Speaking Class Women 140 

University of California Public Speaking Class Men 52 

University of California Extension Psychology Class (adult women) . 40 

' Professional Women (public school teachers, social workers, public 

health nurses) (San Francisco area) 63 

Total 295 

II. Form 60 (Summer, 1945) 

University of Oregon Student Women 47 

University of Oregon and University of California Student Women. 54 

University of Oregon and University of California Student Men 57 

Oregon Service Club Men (Kiwanis, Lions, Rotary Clubs) (Total 

questionnaire) 68 

Oregon Service Club Men (Form A only) 6 60 


Total 286 

III. Forms 4 5 and 40 (November, 1945, to June, 1946) 

A. Form 4$ 

University of California Extension Testing Class (adult women) . . 59 

Psychiatric Clinic Patients (men and women) (Langley Porter 

Clinic of the University of California) 121 

San Quentin State Prison Inmates (men) no 


Total 243 

B. Both Forms 45 and 40 

Alameda School for Merchant Marine Officers (men) 343 

U.S. Employment Service Veterans (men) 106 

T otal 449 


C. Form 40 

Working-Class Women: 

California Labor School 19 

United Electrical Workers Union (C.I.O.) 8 

Office Workers n 

Longshoremen and Warehousemen (I.L.W.U.) (new 

members) 10 

Federal Housing Project Workers 5 


53 

“ In most cases each group taking the questionnaire was treated separately for statistical 
purposes, e.g., San Quentin Prison Inmates, Psychiatric Clinic Men. However, some groups 
were too small for this purpose and were therefore combined with other sociologically 
similar groups. When such combinations occurred, the composition of the overall group 
is indicated in the table. 

6 Form A included the scale for measuring potentially antidemocratic trends in the per- 
sonality and half of the scale for measuring politico-economic conservatism. 



22 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


Working-Class Men: 

United Electrical Workers Union (C.I.O.) 12 

California Labor School 15 

Longshoremen and Warehousemen (I.L.W.U.) (new 

members) 26 

United Seamen’s Service 8 


61 

46 
1 1 
2 9 
*5 
U 
36 


154 

Middle-Class Men: 

Parent-Teachers’ Association 29 

Suburban Church Group 31 

California Labor School (middle-class members) ... 9 

69 

California Service Club Men: 

Kiwanis Club 4° 

Rotary Club 23 


63 

George Washington University Women Students 132 

Los Angeles Men (classes at University of California and Univer- 
sity of Southern California, fraternity group, adult evening class, 

parents of students, radio writers group) n 7 

Los Angeles Women (same groupings as above) 130 

T otal 779 


Total Forms 45 and 40 1,518 

Overall Total of All Forms 2,099 

of “key groups,” that is, groups having the characteristics that were most 
crucial to the problem at hand. Some groups were chosen because their 
sociological status was such that they could be expected to play a vital role 
in a struggle centering around social discrimination, e.g., veterans, service 
clubs, women’s clubs. Other groups were chosen for intensive study because 
they presented extreme manifestations of the personality variables deemed 
most crucial for the potentially antidemocratic individual, e.g., prison in- 
mates, psychiatric patients. 

Save for a few key groups, the subjects were drawn almost exclusively 
from the middle socioeconomic class. It was discovered fairly early in the 
study that the investigation of lower classes would require different instru- 


Middle-Class Women : 

Parent-Teachers’ Association 

California Labor School (middle-class members) . . . 

Suburban Church Group 

Unitarian Church Group 

League of Women Voters 

/ Upper Middle-Class Women’s Club 



INTRODUCTION 


2 3 

ments and different procedures from those developed through the use of 
college students and, hence, this was a task that had best be postponed. 

Groups in which there was a preponderance of minority group members 
were avoided, and when minority group members happened to belong to an 
organization which cooperated in the study, their questionnaires were ex- 
cluded from the calculations. It was not that the ideological trends in mi- 
nority groups were considered unimportant; it was rather that their 
investigation involved special problems which lay outside the scope of the 
present study. 

The great majority of the subjects of the study lived within the San 
Francisco Bay area. Concerning this community it may be said that the 
population increased rapidly during the decade preceding the outbreak of 
World War II, so that a large proportion were newcomers from all parts 
of the nation. During the war, when the area took on the aspect of a boom 
town, the influx was greatly intensified and, hence, it is probable that a 
large number of the present subjects were people who had recently come from 
other states. 

Two large groups were obtained in the Los Angeles area, several smaller 
groups in Oregon, and one group in Washington, D. C. 

Unless a person had at least a grammar school education, it was very dif- 
ficult, if not impossible, for him to fill out the questionnaire properly— to 
understand the issues set forth in the scales and the instructions for marking 
the forms. The average educational level of the subjects in the study is about 
the twelfth grade, there being roughly as many college graduates as there 
were subjects who had not completed high school. It is important to note 
that the present samples are heavily weighted with younger people, the 
bulk of them falling between the ages of twenty and thirty-five. 

It will be apparent that the subjects of the study taken all together would 
provide a rather inadequate basis for generalizing about the total population 
of this country. The findings of the study may be expected to hold fairly 
well for non-Jewish, white, native-born, middle-class Americans. Where 
the same relationships appeared repeatedly as different groups— e.g., college 
students, women’s clubs, prison inmates— came under scrutiny, generaliza- 
tions may be made with the most certainty. When sections of the popula- 
tion not sampled in the present study are made the subjects of research, it 
is to be expected that most of the relationships reported in the following 
chapters will still hold— and that additional ones will be found. 

2. THE DISTRIBUTION AND COLLECTION OF QUESTIONNAIRES 

In approaching a group from whom questionnaires were to be collected, 
the first step was to secure the cooperation of the group leadership. This 
was never difficult when the leader was liberal in his outlook, e.g., the in- 
structor of a class in public speaking, the psychologist at a Maritime School, 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


a minister in the inner councils of a men’s service club. The purposes and 
procedures of the study were explained to him fully, and he then presented 
the project of filling out the questionnaires to his group. When the group 
leadership was conservative, the procedure was more difficult. If it were 
made known that the study had something to do with social discrimination, 
it was not unusual for great interest in this “important problem” to be ex- 
pressed at first and then for one delay to follow another until hope of ob- 
taining responses from the group in question had to be abandoned. Among 
people of this type there appeared to be a conviction that it was best to let 
sleeping dogs lie, that the best approach to the “race problem” was not to 
“stir up anything.” A more successful approach to conservative leaders was 
to present the whole project as a survey of general public opinion, “like a 
Gallup poll,” being carried forward by a group of scientists at the Uni- 
versity, and to count upon the variety and relative mildness of the scale 
items to prevent undue alarm. 

In collecting questionnaires from classes of students, whether in regular 
sessions of the University, in summer school, or in university extension, it 
was usual for the instructor of the class to handle the whole proceeding 
himself. In other instances it was usually necessary to combine the adminis- 
tration of the questionnaire with a talk to the group by a member of the 
Study staff. He gave the instructions for filling out the questionnaires, aided 
in their collection, and then gave a talk on “Gauging Public Opinion,” com- 
ing only as close to the real issues of the study as he judged possible without 
arousing the resistances of his audience. 

Whether the group was judged to be liberal or not, the questionnaire was 
always presented to it as a public opinion inventory— not as a study of 
prejudice. The instructions given to the groups follow: 

Survey of General Public Opinion: Instructions 

We are trying to find out what the general public feels and thinks about a number 
of important social questions. 

We are sure you will find the enclosed survey interesting. You will find in it 
many questions and social issues which you have thought about, read about in 
newspapers and magazines, and heard about on the radio. 

This is not an intelligence test nor an information test. There are no “right” or 
“wrong” answers. The best answer is your personal opinion. You can be sure that, 
whatever your opinion may be on a certain issue, there will be many people who 
agree, many who disagree. And this is what we want to find out: how is public 
opinion really divided on each of these socially important topics? 

It must be emphasized that the sponsors of this survey do not necessarily agree or 
disagree with the statements in it. We have tried to cover a great many points of 
view. We agree with some of the statements, and disagree with others. Similarly, 
you will probably find yourself agreeing strongly with some statements, disagree- 
ing just as strongly with others, and being perhaps more neutral about still others. 

We realize that people are very busy nowadays, and we don’t want to take too 
much of your time. All that we ask is that you; 



INTRODUCTION 


25 


(a) Read each statement carefully and mark it according to your first reac- 
tion. It isn’t necessary to take a lot of time for any one question. 

(b) Answer every question. 

(c) Give your personal point of view. Don’t talk the questions over with any- 
one until you have finished. 

(d) Be as sincere , accurate, and complete as possible in the limited time and 
space. 

This survey works just like a Gallup Poll or an election. As in any other secret 
ballot, the “voters” who fill it out do not have to give their names. 

The cooperation of the groups, once they were presented with the ques- 
tionnaire, was excellent, at least 90 per cent of those present usually handing 
in completed questionnaires. Some members of each group were, of course, 
absent on the day the questionnaire was administered, but since there was 
never any advance notice about this part of the program, there is no reason 
to believe that the responses of these absentees would have been generally 
different from those of the rest of the group. Subjects who were present but 
failed to hand in completed questionnaires fall almost entirely into two 
classes: those who made no attempt to cooperate and those who handed in 
incomplete questionnaires. It is to be suspected that the former were more 
antidemocratic than the average of their group, while the slowness or care- 
lessness of the latter is probably of no significance for ideology. 

There was one attempt to collect questionnaires by mail. Over 200 ques- 
tionnaires with complete instructions were mailed to teachers and nurses, 
together with a letter soliciting their cooperation and covering letters from 
their superintendents. The return was a disappointing 20 per cent, and this 
sample was strongly biased in the direction of low scores on the scales for 
measuring antidemocratic trends. 

3. THE SELECTION OF SUBJECTS FOR INTENSIVE CLINICAL STUDY 

With a few exceptions, the subjects from a given group who were inter- 
viewed and given the Thematic Apperception Test were chosen from among 
the 25 per cent obtaining the highest and the 25 per cent obtaining the low- 
est scores (high and low quartiles) on the Ethnocentrism scale. This scale, it 
seemed, would give the best initial measure of antidemocratic tendencies. 

If the group from which subjects were to be selected was one which held 
regular meetings, as was usually the case, the procedure was to collect the 
questionnaires at one meeting, to obtain the scale scores and decide upon 
suitable interviewees, and then to solicit further cooperation at the next 
meeting. In the few cases where the use of a second meeting was impossible, 
the request for interviewees was made at the time of administering the 
questionnaire, those willing to be interviewed being asked to indicate how 
they might be reached. In order to disguise the basis of selection and the 
purpose of the clinical study, the groups were told that the attempt was 
being made to carry on a more detailed discussion of opinions and ideas 



2 6 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


with a few of their number— about io per cent— and that people representing 
the various kinds and degrees of response found in the group were being 
asked to come for interviews. 

Anonymity was to be insured for the interviews as well as for the group 
survey, if the subject so desired. In order to arrange this, subjects desired 
for individual study were referred to by the birth date which they had en- 
tered on their questionnaires. This could not be done, however, in those 
cases where subjects were asked to signify at the time of filling out the ques- 
tionnaire whether or not they were willing to be interviewed. This may have 
been one reason why the response in these instances was poor. But there 
were other reasons why subjects of these groups were difficult to interview, 
and it is to be noted that the great majority of those secured under the birth 
date arrangement showed no concern about anonymity once their appoint- 
ments had been made. 

Subjects were paid $3.00 for the two to three hours they spent in the 
clinical sessions. In offering this inducement at the time of the request for 
interviewees, it was pointed out that this was the only way to insure that 
the staff of the Study would not be conscience-stricken for taking so much 
valuable time. The arrangement did indeed have this effect, but what 
was more important, it was a considerable aid to securing suitable subjects: 
most of those who scored low on the Ethnocentrism scale would have co- 
operated anyway, being somewhat attracted to psychology and willing to 
give their time in a “good cause,” but many of the high scorers made it plain 
that the money was the determining consideration. 

In selecting subjects for clinical study the aim was to examine a variety 
of high and low scorers. Considerable variety was assured by the device of 
taking a few from most of the different groups studied. Within a given group 
it was possible to achieve further variety with respect to group member- 
ships and scores on the other scales. There was no attempt, however, to 
arrange that the percentage of the interviewed subjects having each of 
various group memberships was the same as that which held for the group 
from which they were drawn. The question of how well the high and low 
scorers who were interviewed represent all those who scored high or low 
on the Ethnocentrism scale is taken up in Chapter IX. 

Very few “middle” subjects— the 50 per cent whose scores fall between 
the high and the low quartiles— were interviewed. It was believed that for 
the understanding of antidemocratic trends the most important first step was 
to determine the factors which most clearly distinguished one extreme from 
the other. In order properly to compare two groups it is necessary to have 
a minimum of thirty to forty subjects in each group, and since men and 
women, as it turned out, presented somewhat different problems and had to 
be treated separately, the study of high- vs. low-scoring men and the study 
of high- vs. low-scoring women involved four statistical groupings totaling 



INTRODUCTION 


2 7 

150. To conduct more interviews than this was for practical reasons impos- 
sible. The intensive study of representative middle scorers should form a 
central part of any future research along the lines of the present study. Since 
they are more numerous than either extreme, it is especially important to 
know their democratic or antidemocratic potentialities. The impression 
gained from a few interviews with middle scorers, and from the examina- 
tion of many of their questionnaires, is that they are not indifferent or 
ignorant with respect to the issues of the scales, or lacking in the kinds of 
motivation or personality traits found in the extremes. In short, they are in 
no sense categorically different; they are, as it were, made of the same stuff 
but in different combinations. 



CHAPTER II 


THE CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO 
COLLEGE MEN: A PRELIMINARY VIEW 
R. Nevitt Sanford 


A. INTRODUCTION 

Although the present research is concerned primarily with the organiza- 
tion of ideological trends within the individual, the reader will soon note 
that the bulk of this volume is concerned not with individuals as such but 
with variables and their general relationships. This is unavoidable, for al- 
though each variable is but an abstraction when lifted out of the total con- 
text in which it operates, the study of individuals can proceed only by analysis 
into components, and the relations of these components can be regarded as 
significant only if they can be, to some extent at least, generalized. Never- 
theless, every effort will be made to keep the individual constantly in mind 
as the analysis of components proceeds. 

The verbatim interview protocols of two extreme scorers— one high 
(prejudiced) and one low (against prejudice)— on the Ethnocentrism scale 
will, in the present chapter, picture these subjects as they might appear to the 
casual observer during, let us say, an evening’s discussion, among friends, 
of current social issues. Only the interview discussions of minorities, politics, 
religion, vocation, and income are given, the more personal clinical-genetic 
material being left for later sections. That the distinction between “ideo- 
logical” and “personal” is artificial— though often useful— is indicated by the 
fact that in the subject’s spontaneous discussion of ideology some references 
to personal matters such as family and childhood repeatedly crop up. The 
aim is to set forth in a preliminary way that which is to be studied, to give 
a general impression of the totality which is to be analyzed and, in so far as 
possible, generalized. As the various components are taken up in turn in the 
following chapters, each is related to what has gone before, until a point is 
reached where each can be related to the whole. The value of the analysis can 
be measured in terms of how much the formulations arrived at in the end 
contribute to an understanding of the individuals whose protocols are pre- 
sented here. 


3 * 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


32 

A special advantage of having actual cases in view at the start is that it 
becomes possible to state research problems in concrete terms. The reader 
will probably find that the kinds of discussion presented below are familiar; 
he may even have asked himself after listening to such a discussion, “Why 
does he talk that way?” This is one way of putting the major question of 
the present research. In order to approach an answer it is necessary first to 
describe as precisely as possible how the subject talks, to have terms in 
which the manner and content of his thought may be compared with that 
of others. In the present chapter, therefore, the interviews are used to il- 
lustrate the derivation of the descriptive concepts of the study. These 
concepts are then employed in framing research questions and formulating 
explanatory hypotheses. 

The protocols which follow do not represent the most extreme cases 
found in the study (if the total population were sampled they probably 
would not be extreme at all) ; nor can they be said to be typical, in any strict 
sense of the word, of subjects falling into the high or the low quartiles on 
the Ethnocentrism scale. There are other types of extremes than these, but 
at the least they belong to the types found most commonly among the high 
and low scorers. Lack of space makes it impossible to consider in this chapter 
examples of women with extreme scores; studies of individual women are, 
however, presented in later sections. 

Much of the interview material given below may, at first glance, impress 
the reader as rather unimportant, and quite unrelated to prejudice. The 
analysis to follow, however, will show that nearly everything these sub- 
jects say makes some contribution to the general picture and has meaning 
when viewed in relation to it. 

B. MACK: A MAN HIGH ON ETHNOCENTRISM 

This subject is a twenty-four year old college freshman who intends to 
study law and hopes eventually to become a corporation lawyer or a criminal 
lawyer 1 : 

His grades are B— on the average. After graduating from high school and 
attending business school for a year, he worked in the Civil Service in Wash- 
ington, D. C. His brief sojourn in the Army was terminated by a medical 
discharge— because of a stomach condition— when he was attending Officer 
Candidate School. 

He is a Methodist, as was his mother, but he does not attend services 
and he thinks religion is not important to him. His political party affiliation 

1 Most of the material of this brief introduction to the subject was contained in his 
questionnaire, though a few pertinent facts are from his interview. In later sections all of 
his responses on the questionnaire will be considered in relation to the clinical material, 
but here the aim is merely to identify him, as it were, before proceeding with the discus- 
sion of his ideology. 



CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN 


33 


is, like his father’s. Democratic. He “agrees” with the political trends ex- 
pressed by the Anti-New Deal Democrats and “disagrees” with the New 
Deal Democrats; he “disagrees” with the traditional Republicans but “agrees” 
with the Willkie-type Republicans. 

The subject is of “Irish” extraction and was born in San Francisco. Both 
of his parents were born in the United States. He states in his questionnaire 
that his father is a retired lumberman who owns his own home and has a 
retired income of $1,000. It is learned in the interview that the father was a 
worker in the woods and in the mills and it is to be inferred that his income 
derives mainly from a pension. The mother died when the subject was six. 
He has a sister four years his senior. 

The protocol of his interview follows : 2 

Vocation: This student has decided to make law his vocation. He says he has 
been out of school three years and is now a freshman at the University. However, 
he went for two years to business school and in addition has attended night school; 
but he has to start at the beginning here. He had a Civil Service job in Washington, 
being for a time principal clerk in one of the sections of the War Department. 
(What made you decide to be a lawyer?) “I decided when I was in Washington. 
Of course, I was half decided when I was at business school, where business law 
was emphasized. When I was in high school, my financial means were such that 
I figured I had better get a general business education and then go to work. (In 
what ways does law appeal to you?) Well, it seems to me to unlock an awful lot 
of doors. In any profession, you go so far and then you bump up against it. It is the 
fundamental basis of our government. It is really the foundation of our enterprise. 
Sometime I have hopes of making it available to people without funds, so that they 
can have equal sittings in the court. I want to go in for a general practice at the 
start and then maybe corporate law and then maybe criminal law. Law will be 
more important in the future than ever before. There is a trend toward more 
stringent laws, more regimentation. This will be true whether the form of govern- 
ment alters or not. Economists have determined that for the good of everybody 
there has to be central control. (What does your father think of the law?) My 
father is quite interested in it. Of course, he wanted business for me. He has busi- 
ness ability but he is a very retiring fellow. He wouldn’t meet people. He owned 
some lumber land, but mostly he preferred working for other people. He is very 
unassuming; he worked in the woods and in the mills. His $1,000 income now is 
from investments, stocks and bonds. He hasn’t worked for thirty years. At the 
time he worked, the wage was around $75 a month. He had stomach trouble. Yes, 
he owns his own home in a little town. We have our own cistern and an electric 
pump that I helped install. He built the old house himself and he has all the modern 
conveniences. He can get by all right on $1,000 a year.” 

Income : (You want to earn $5,000 per year?) “Well, $5,000 sounds like a lot of 
money right now. It depends on where you live and how. In ordinary circum- 
stances you could live comfortably on it. The opportunities for a lawyer in a small 
town are limited, but I do like the small town. Especially those that are adjacent 

2 The interviewer wrote as rapidly as he could, in a “shorthand” of his own, throughout 
the interview and then immediately used a dictaphone to record all that he had written. 
In this way it was possible to approach a verbatim recording of what the subject had said. 
Throughout the book, the interviewer’s report of the interview is given in small type. 
Quotation marks within this material indicate a verbatim record of the subject’s statements. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


34 

to the mountains. I enjoy hunting, fishing, and camping. But I like the conveniences 
of the city. In the city you have finer houses and the theaters. I haven t found any 
place I like better than California, and I have traveled quite a lot. I’m going to 
travel to Alaska. My father’s brother died there in the Yukon. There are great 
possibilities there in the future. If a person studies it carefully and locates properly, 
he goes up with a town. I worked with some men lumbering last summer who 
worked on the Alaska highway. They found it pretty tough going. But these 
difficulties can be overcome if big capitalists get interested. There is a huge pool 
of oil up there, you know, and that ought to be developed.” 

Politics: “I voted for Dewey. In previous times I would have voted for FDR, 
but I worked there in Washington and saw things I would put a stop to. There is 
a concentration of power in the bureaus. People who work there have different 
attitudes. In the Civil Service you are paid according to how many people are 
under you, so they want people to come in. They think of themselves only. I m 
not mercenary enough to understand it. I would simplify things by a competent 
administration. There is too much overlapping and bungling. I was the right-hand 
man of the General there when the OWI was introduced. They put up this build- 
ing for $600,000 with little purpose in mind. They did the same thing that the 
Army monitoring service was already doing. The OWI wanted to take it over. 
Even after the OWI took it over, the War Department still helped prepare the 
communiques; but the OWI wanted credit. All that duplication at a tremendous 
outlay of money for no purpose. And all the time our department was crying for 
personnel. I worked many hours overtime for no pay because I was in the Civil 
Service. I was there from September, 1940, to September, 1942. I was there when 
war was declared. I worked then for thirty-seven hours straight. It was quite a day 
in Washington. I liked living in Washington very much. I like being close to the 
center of things. You can learn a lot about how the government functions. There 
are daily events at your fingertips that by the time it gets here have changed some- 
how. It was fun knowing about the background, knowing about the secret com- 
mittees. My salary was $2,000 a year. Living conditions, of course, were terrible. 
(What did you like about Dewey especially? ) I liked Dewey’s background, his 
frankness, honesty, his clear-cut way of presenting his case. I think that at heart he 
is a very honest man, interested in maintaining the old government traditions. 
(How do you see things shaping up for the future?) If we maintain our present 
system of government, and I think we will for a time, some things will have to be 
altered. The system in Washington has outgrown the limits of one man to control. 
We have got to eliminate confusion. The man who runs it must pick his lieutenants 
carefully. The way it is now, there is no clear authority. You have to consult a 
half a dozen agencies to get anywhere. This will recede very little after the war. 
Eventually the President will have to appoint a strong Cabinet to run things for 
him. There is no doubt that the system is becoming more centralized. I doubt that 
President Roosevelt will be reelected. It depends on the way the war goes. From 
his speeches, one seems to see that he feels he is necessary to the United States. He 
has control of the Party and will run as long as he is physically able. The popular 
vote in the last election was very close. It was skilful politics that enabled the old 
guard to win. Considering his obstacles, Dewey did very well. In ordinary times, 
he would have had a landslide. People who had sons in the war effort felt that 
taking the President out might prolong the war. That was wrong. The Army and 
the Navy were prepared for the war ten years in advance. General Marshall would 
have had a lot to say, whoever was elected. I have sat beside him and heard him 
talk. Nobody could alter his position. A change of presidents might have altered 



CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN 35 

our relations to England, but riot to Russia. Recently there has been a lot of oppo- 
sition to Churchill. He has been OK in war, but how he will be in peace is a ques- 
tion. There is, of course, close feeling between Roosevelt and Churchill. But 
Roosevelt would come out second-best in a contest with Winnie. Of course, a lot 
of Roosevelt’s ideas came from Hoover. (Would there be a difference in our rela- 
tions with Russia?) No, there would be no difference in our relations with Russia. 

I think Joe Stalin would play pretty fair with us. And Dewey is honest to the 
death. He has a good background, though not of the wealthy class, and he would 
think of the average people. His honesty and straightforwardness appeal to me 
greatly. But a man has to use some underhandedness to get across the highest 
ideals.” 

Religion ; “On my father’s side, my folks were Catholic. My father and his 
brothers and sisters were Catholic. Father was never deeply religious, but he was 
a good man. He drank but little, and he never smoked. He was very honest and 
strict in his dealings. He followed the church rules without going to church. It 
stems back to his not wanting to meet people. He was very retiring, and I can’t 
understand it. The other members of his family were not that way. His sisters 
are very average. My mother was a Methodist and quite strict up until her death. 
I was sick much of the time. She brought us up very strictly under this guidance. 
Her aunt took us in hand when Mother died and saw that we attended Sunday 
School with her children. That was up until I was twelve or thirteen. Then I got 
out of the habit, I like church OK, though I disagree with some of its doctrines. I 
like the music and singing in church. I was so busy since high school that I stopped 
going. I have gone in for social things in spite of a great dread of them. But I looked 
at my father and saw that I had to do differently. Yes, the teachings of Sunday 
School did mean something. But the arbitrary beliefs were too much. I grew up 
quickly. My father has allowed me to do as I pleased, although he forced some de- 
cisions upon me. About smoking, he said I must do it in front of him, if I must. He 
also provided wines and liquors in the ice chest. I soon tired of smoking and never 
took much to drinking. I have a stubborn nature, and if he had tried to stop me, I 
probably would have taken it up. (Under what conditions might you turn to re- 
ligion? ) Yes, under some conditions I might. I have had a lot of sickness, stomach 
trouble ever since I was twelve. I was in the hospital once for three months. During 
those periods, I like to turn to the Bible. I like the history and sayings of Christ, 
principally. I like to consider them and analyze them and figure out how they affect 
me. I’m not so interested in the apostles’ sayings-that’s not first-hand, so I don’t 
accept it entirely. I have to be assured of it factually. I have always tried to live 
according to His Ten Commandments. I like to receive just treatment and to give 
it to others. (What about your conception of God? ) Well, I have none especially. 
The closest conception I got was when I was in the service, that is, God as strictly 
man, greater than any on this earth, one that would treat us as a father would his 
son. I don’t think God is terrible in His justice. If one lives justly, his laxness will 
be overlooked. The thing is to make things happier and juster on the earth.” 

Minorities : “My mother comes from an Irish-English-German background. I 
think of myself as Irish-perhaps because my father is definitely so, and proud of 
it. He likes the thought of St. Patrick’s Day. I have a quick temper like the Irish. 
If there is a lot of Irish in people, they are very enjoyable. They are easy spenders, 
even though they never have much. They have the ability to make other people 
happy. They are often witty. I wish I were more like that. But there is too much 
of the lackadaisical and laziness in some classes of Irish. (Which groups would you 
contrast with the Irish? ) The Irish are most different from the Germans or Dutch 



3 6 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

or maybe the Scandinavians— perhaps Polish or White Russians, where you find a 
more stolid person in thought and action. The types that I have encountered have 
a solid build and are not very excitable. (Question about Irish assimilating.) I like 
to think of an Irish strain; it is enjoyable. Yet in some people the Irish seems to 
predominate. It depends on the individual. I don’t have any desire to be Irish, but 
I like people who are. I never met an Irishman I didn’t like. My brother-in-law is 
very definitely Irish. (What about groups of people you dislike?) Principally 
those I don’t understand very well. Austrians, the Japanese I never cared for; 
Filipinos— I don’t know— I ? d just as soon leave them as have them. Up home there 
were Austrians and Poles, though 1 find the Polish people interesting. I have a 
little dislike for Jewish people. I don’t think they are as courteous or as interested 
in humanity as they ought to be. And I resent that, though I have had few dealings 
with them. They accent the clannish and the material. It may be my imagination, 
but it seems to me you can see their eyes light up when you hand them a coin. 
I avoid the Jewish clothiers because they have second-rate stuff. I have to be care- 
ful about how I dress. I mean, I buy things so seldom I have to be careful I get 
good things. (Can you tell that a person is a Jew?) Sometimes; usually only after 
I get their ideas. Like one of the girls in Public Speaking. She had all the charac- 
teristics, but she left a favorable impression on me, even though her ideas I dis- 
agree with. (You mean there are certain ideas which characterize the Jews?) Yes, 
to stick together, no matter what; to always be in a group; to have Jewish sororities 
and Jewish organizations. If a Jew fails in his business, he’s helped to get started 
again. Their attention is directed very greatly toward wealth. Girls at the Jewish 
sorority house all have fur coats, expensive but no taste. Almost a superiority idea. 
I resent any show of superiority in people, and I tty to keep it down myself. I like 
to talk with working people. (Do you think the dislike of Jews is increasing? ) No, 
I think this war has made people closer together in this country. I’ve come across 
Jewish soldiers and sailors; they would be liked and accepted if they would be 
willing to mix, but they would rather be alone, though I would have accepted 
them the same as anybody. I think they have interesting ideas, but they have to 
have something in return. (Do you think the Jews have done their part in the war 
effort?) Perhaps they have, but they are businessmen, and they have been fully 
repaid. (Do you think the Jews are a political force in this country?) Yes, in New 
York there is an organization for Jewish immigration and comfort of Jews. They 
are very well organized. This should not be allowed. (What do you think is the 
danger?) I don’t believe it is a danger except in a concentration of wealth in a 
certain class. I hate to see people in this country take on the burdens of people who 
have been misfits in other countries. We have enough problems at home without 
helping the oppressed of other countries. The Jews won’t intermingle. So they are 
not a great contribution to our country— though Jewish scientists and doctors have 
contributed a great deal. I checked on the immigration. Three-quarters of those 
leaving Europe arrive here. They are very thorough in it. They are businessmen 
and they will bring pressure to bear on Congress. We ought to prevent further 
immigration and concentrate on trying to get them to mingle and become a part 
of our people. (Do you think they would mingle more if they felt there was no 
prejudice against them? ) If they would mingle more, there would be more will- 
ingness to break down the barriers on the part of other people. Of course, they 
have always been downtrodden, but that’s no reason for resentment. (I notice you 
stated you wouldn’t marry a Jew.) I certainly wouldn’t. I would date that girl in 
Public Speaking, but she doesn’t emphasize her Jewishness. She was accepted by 



CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN 37 

the whole class. I would marry her if she had thrown off her Jewishness, but I 
wouldn’t be able to associate with her class.” 

C. LARRY: A MAN LOW ON ETHNOCENTRISM 

This subject is a twenty-eight year old college sophomore, a student of 
Business Administration, with a B- average. Like Mack, his choice of a career 
was made after he had been out of school for a number of years— working part 
of the time and spending part of the time in a tuberculosis sanitarium. 

He is of “American” extraction and was bom in Chicago. Both parents 
were born in the United States. His father is a cafe and bar owner (a small 
businessman, working in his own business), whose income is now $12,000 
as compared with a prewar $3,000. The father owns his own home and 
some other real estate. 

The subject, like his parents, is a Methodist, though he attends church 
seldom. He is a Republican— again like his parents. He “agrees” with the 
Willkie-type Republicans and “disagrees” with the traditional Republicans; 
he “disagrees” with the New Deal Democrats, while “agreeing” with the 
Anti-New Deal Democrats. This pattern of response, on the questionnaire, 
is the same as that of Mack, the high-scoring man. It will be especially inter- 
esting therefore to note the contrast in the political ideologies of these two 
men as given in the interview. It will show how great, sometimes, is the 
discrepancy between the political party or the “official” ideology of a 
subject and his actual political tendencies. 

Vocation: “I have definite plans; I want to go into real estate and finance. I 
want to own my own business as an executive. I want to combine real estate and 
finance, that is lending money, and if successful, I would go into a brokerage 
business, buying and selling stocks and bonds. (Money?) Several of my relatives 
and my father have money, and will support me. I worked for them, as assistant 
manager for my father who is in a cafe and bar business, and he is also in real 
estate. Then I worked for CPA accounting firms, for several, and I have taken 
courses where I could pick things up, in accounting and business. I had one year of 
junior college, but I didn’t take my work seriously. I got fairly good grades, but 
not as good as I should have gotten. I got a disease; I was in the hospital for four 
years. (It took several questions to learn that the subject had tuberculosis and was 
in a sanitarium. ) But I never lost hope. I always planned to return to college. I took 
correspondence courses during my last two years in the hospital. (Larry always 
calls it a hospital, never a sanitarium.) In accounting, business management, etc., 
I did reading to improve my mind. I almost memorized Dale Carnegie’s How to 
Win Friends . . . because I thought it would help me in business contacts. I planned 
my whole life, even where I’d settle down, in Los Angeles. That was all I had to 
do, lying there in bed, was plan my whole future, what I would do, and how I 
would do it. (What do you like about your planned business? ) My grandmother 
had a rather successful restaurant; she was a very efficient businesswoman, and 
I admired her. My whole environment was about business; it glorified it, and I 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


38 

learned the same attitude. Being in business for yourself gives independence, more 
money, vacations whenever you want, the freedom you don’t get in a 365-days-a- 
year job. I never cared for sciences like chemistry, zoology, dentistry, and stuff 
like that. (Medicine?) That would be all right if I thought I could go to the top-, 
but the average one is holed up in a top-floor office, not making more than $200 a 
month very often. That’s nothing compared to a businessman who hasn’t had any 
education or worked to prepare himself as a doctor has. It’s not only the money, 
but also the general way of living. (However, the money seems to be clearly and 
focally important.) I returned to school for three reasons: (1) knowledge— to be 
able to philosophize and understand things; (2) security— to get an adequate liv- 
ing; (3) social prestige.” (This is a good example of Larry’s tendency to make 
everything organized and explicit. He knows just what he wants to do and why 
he wants to do it, and has even tried to make psychological explanations for this 
tendency. He enumerated 1, 2, 3 on his fingertips.) 

Income: “I’d like to earn at least $25,000 a year and have a personal capital of 
$100,000, that is to say, my own money apart from the business, So I could travel, 
do whatever I want, whatever I see other people do, go to Europe, attend the 
Kentucky Derby, or whatever. I would travel first class, go by air, see South 
America, go nearly any place. I’ve traveled only a little so far. Or, go to a con- 
vention in the East if I want to. Not a millionaire, just enough to do these things 
with full security for the future. (How optimistic or pessimistic are you?) I’m 
very optimistic. I don’t know exactly how much, but I’ll be at least fairly success- 
ful, probably as I said before. I’ve already had a little success. Last year in Chicago 
I had an opportunity to go into business with some men in the cabaret and bowling- 
alley business, along that line. But they didn’t offer enough money, and I didn’t 
like the bowling business anyway. Besides, I wanted to come back to school, lay a 
basis for my final plans, and having my own business. (What if you fail?) I 
wouldn’t commit suicide or get terribly depressed. That sickness (he never calls it 
by name) taught me to philosophize, to take things as they come with a smile, to 
start again fresh after every difficulty. (What about your family?) During the 
depression my father had a good job, as always; not wealthy, but better than average, 
about $3,000 a year, I guess; but we had a large family, six children; I’m in the 
middle. Then he went into business and did very well; he now has a gold-mine 
bar. He makes more in a year than he ever expected to make in a lifetime. He has 
also bought some property on the side and is making a lot at that. He is like his 
mother, my grandmother. She and he just love their business. He doesn’t want 
vacations, or social prestige, or wealth as such. He just wants to be an efficient, 
successful businessman, and all his pleasure comes from that. I guess it’s wanting to 
have satisfied customers, having them come in for years and be satisfied and to 
have well-coordinated employees. (What kind of a boss is he?) He is kind but 
firm. He bought homes for two employees; he lets them pay it off to him gradu- 
ally. He gives them a Christmas bonus, stuff like that, but he also demands effi- 
ciency and output. He is an ideal employer. In fact, I don’t think I’d be as good 
to my employees as he is, like risking money on their homes and not knowing 
whether they might run out on me or not.” 

Politics: “My father and mother are Republicans. They never voted for 
Roosevelt. I have voted in two elections, and I voted Republican. But our rela- 
tives are Democrats and our friends too. The whole family has been Republican 
for years and I guess that’s why I am, and that’s why my father is too. Also because 
businessmen generally don’t like the taxes, restrictions, and bureaus, the red tape. 
Roosevelt is too much of a politician; he hasn’t enough principles. Like the way 



CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN 39 

he threw over Wallace in the last election. I prefer Jones to Wallace as Secretary 
of Commerce, because Jones is a better businessman and would be more efficient; 
in general I like Wallace and Willkie, though I don’t like Wallace’s farm program. 
(Who is the best Republican?) Willkie. I voted for Dewey mostly as a protest 
against Roosevelt. But Dewey is too young and not experienced enough. (Dewey 
vs. Wallace?) Wallace is the better man, and I usually vote for the better man, 
but I guess I put politics ahead of the man this time, to get the Republicans back. 
I think it’s time for a change of party.” 

Minorities : (What do you think about the minority problem in this country? ) 
“I can say that I haven’t any prejudices; I try not to. (Negroes? ) They should be 
given social equality, any job they are qualified for; should be able to live in any 
neighborhood, and so on. When I was young, I may have had prejudices, but since 
the war I’ve been reading about the whole world, and our minority problems seem 
so petty compared with the way other countries have worked things out. (Ex- 
ample? ) Like Russia; I don’t like their share-the-wealth economics, but I think 
they are unified and fighting so wonderfully because everyone is equal. (He then 
gives a discourse on France, England, the Dutch, etc., and shows good knowledge 
of imperialism, exploitation of colonies, and so on, in the minorities aspect. He is 
less clear about the economics.) I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- 
ness for all. We aren’t unified and we don’t know what we’re fighting for, and the 
discrimination is at the root of it. Racial and economic questions are at the root 
of war. I don’t believe in the suppression of anyone. I think the Japs are taken off 
the coast for undemocratic reasons. It’s just that a lot of people wanted their farms 
and businesses. There was no real democratic reason for it. The segregation of one 
nationality just leads to more segregation, and it gets worse. The discrimination 
toward Negroes is because they aren’t understood and because they are physically 
different. Towards Jews it’s because of their business ability— the fear that they’ll 
take over business control of the country. There should be education in Negro 
history, for instance, the part Negroes have played in the development of the 
country; and education in the history of other minorities, too. How the Jews came 
to be persecuted, and why some of them are successful.” 

Religion: “I’m Methodist, and my family is Methodist, except for one brother 
who is going to be a Catholic priest. He’s fifteen. He just likes it— he got into it by 
himself. Well, my mother was Catholic as a girl, but she became a Methodist when 
she married, and she didn’t try to make any of us Catholics. (Value of religion?) 
It teaches the morals of right and wrong; that’s the main value. But I question lots 
of religious teachings, after studying science and philosophy— like Darwin’s evolu- 
tion theory and the fact that man’s history goes back to before the Bible. I go to 
church, I try to believe in religion, but I sometimes question much of it. I enjoy 
church, a good sermon on morals and good living, and how to progress. That’s 
what’s most important about religion (Parents?) They were church attenders, 
fairly religious; they sent us to Sunday School; they still say blessing before each 
meal. But they don’t discuss religion or think much about it outside of church.” 

D. ANALYSIS OF THE TWO CASES 

Before we turn to the analysis of these two interviews, a few words con- 
cerning their significance for our major research problem may be injected. 
It will probably be granted that each of these protocols gives a total im- 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


40 

pression. Though each contains some contradictions, each appears to be 
relatively organized and relatively self-consistent psychologically. What is 
the importance for prejudice or potential fascism of such overall patterns? 
It may be argued that overt behavior in specific situations forms the crux 
of social discrimination, and that the most pressing need is for information 
concerning how many people today will, under given conditions, engage 
in this or that discriminatory practice. This kind of information is important, 
but it is not the particular concern of the present research. The major con- 
cern here is with the potential for fascism in this country. Since we do not 
have fascism, and since overt antidemocratic actions are officially frowned 
upon, surveys of what people actually do at the present time are likely to 
underestimate the danger. The question asked here is what is the degree of 
readiness to behave antidemocratically should social conditions change in 
such a way as to remove or reduce the restraint upon this kind of behavior? 
This readiness, according to the present theory, is integral with the total 
mental organization here being considered. 

Though each ideological pattern may be regarded as a whole, it is a com- 
plex whole, one that embraces numerous features with respect to which 
individuals may differ significantly. It is not enough to say that the one man 
is “prejudiced” and the other “unprejudiced,” and on this basis to make 
value judgments and to plan for action. What are the distinguishing fea- 
tures? How is their presence within the individual to be accounted for? 
What is their role within his over-all adjustment? How do they interact with 
other features to form an organized totality? 

In order to arrive at answers to these questions, the first task, it appears, 
is one of description. It is necessary to inquire, first, what are the trends 
or themes which run through an individual’s discussion of each ideological 
area and through his discussion of ideology in general and, second, in what 
respect are these contents (variables) similar to and how do they differ from 
those found in another subject. 

The following examination of the interview protocols just presented is 
designed to illustrate the kinds of descriptive concepts used in the present 
study, and to show the manner of their derivation. The analysis was guided 
by a theoretical approach, and it is to be recognized that another approach 
might draw attention to other aspects of the cases; there seems little reason 
to doubt, however, that the features here distinguished are among the most 
important ones. 

As the descriptive concepts are brought forward, it will be possible to 
raise concrete questions for research. These questions concern (a) the de- 
terminants of consistent trends within the individual and of differences from 
one individual to another, and (b) the generality in larger populations of 
the variables and the explanatory relationships formulated on the basis of a 
few case studies. 

The order of topics in the interview protocols was determined by consid- 



CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN 4 1 

erations of interviewing technique: one should start with what the subject 
finds it easiest to talk about and leave the more affect-laden questions, such 
as those concerning minorities, until the end. It is convenient here, however, 
to take up the topics in an order which is more in keeping with the develop- 
ment of the study and the general plan of the present volume: anti-Semitism, 
then ethno centrism, and then ideology in general. 

1. IDEOLOGY CONCERNING THE JEWS 

Mack’s accusations against the Jews may be grouped under three main 
headings: (a) violations of conventional values, (b) ingroup characteristics 
(clannish and power-seeking), and (c) burdens and misfits. The Jews are 
said to violate conventional values in that they are “not courteous or inter- 
ested in humanity” but, instead, are materialistic and money-minded. As 
businessmen they have “second-class stuff” and are given to cheating; in 
social contacts the accent is on what is expensive but lacking in taste. 

The Jews as a whole are conceived of as constituting a closely knit group, 
the members of which are blindly loyal and stick together for mutual com- 
fort and help. They have their own organizations because they are unwill- 
ing to mix with Gentiles. By sticking together they accumulate wealth and 
power which will be used to benefit no one but themselves. 

But if there is Jewish power there is also Jewish weakness, for among 
them are burdens and misfits, and as a group, they have always been down- 
trodden. Why this should be true, in view of their capacity to stick together 
and accumulate wealth, remains unexplained by the subject. He seems to feel 
that it is their own fault, for they “should not resent” what has befallen them. 
Weak Jews are left in a particularly hopeless position; it is not only that 
non-Jews cannot be expected to help them but strong Jews should use their 
wealth and power, not to support weak members of their group, but to 
help non-Jews. Strong Jews could thus escape the accusation of clannish- 
ness and lack of interest in humanity. In general, Jews should throw off 
their Jewishness and mix with the rest of the population; then the social dis- 
tance between the subject and them may be diminished. (It may be sug- 
gested, however, that there is probably nothing the girl in the public speaking 
class could do to bring complete acceptance by the subject. Her Jewishness 
would probably remain as something to intrigue as well as to repel 
him.) 

Whereas Mack spent most of his time talking about “what’s wrong with 
the Jews” and “what the Jews should do about it,” Larry spent most of his 
time talking about “what’s wrong with non-Jews” and “what non-Jews 
should do about it.” Larry opposes the idea that Jews want power and 
control; he wants to educate people about what Jews are really like. One of 
the most important differences between the two subjects is that Larry focuses 
on why these problems exist, while Mack does not seriously consider this 
question. Larry says he believes in completely open interaction with every- 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


4 2 

body equal. Discrimination is at the root of war; it is a threat for all groups 
and a problem they must all attack. 

These discussions afford suitable examples of what is meant by ideology 
concerning Jews. It seems plain that what one has to deal with here is not 
a single specific attitude but a system that has content, scope, and structure. 

It may be noted at once that Mack expresses negative opinions concerning 
what the Jews are like (they are clannish, materialistic, etc.), hostile attitudes 
toward them (it is up to them to do the changing), and definite values (for 
courtesy, honesty, good taste, etc.) which shape the opinions and justify 
the attitudes. In contrast, Larry reveals no negative opinions about Jews, 
expresses attitudes that are favorable to them (nondiscrimination, understand- 
ing), and speaks of different values (freedom from prejudice, social equal- 
ity, etc.). 

Questions for research immediately come to mind. How common in larger 
populations are the kinds of accusations made by Mack? What other kinds 
of accusations may be found and with what frequency? What, within our 
society, are the most characteristic features of imagery concerning Jews? 
How general is the readiness to accept negative opinions, that is to say, to 
what extent would an individual who, like Mack, expresses spontaneously a 
set of negative opinions, agree with others that were proposed to him? In 
what sense, and to what extent, is anti-Semitic ideology irrational? (For 
example, are there other irrational features similar to those exhibited by our 
prejudiced subject: to speak of Jews as if they were all alike and then to 
ascribe to them traits which could not possibly coexist in the same person, 
to insist that the thing for them to do is to assimilate and then to make it 
clear that he cannot accept them if they do? Are these irrational trends 
typical of high scorers?) Are the attitudes toward Jews expressed by the 
present subjects typical of prejudiced and unprejudiced individuals? What 
are the main attitudes to be found in our society? Do people with negative 
opinions usually have hostile attitudes as well? Is there a general readiness to 
accept or oppose a broad pattern of anti-Semitic attitudes and opinions? 

All of the above questions concern the content of anti-Semitic ideology; 
questions may likewise be directed to its intensity. If there is in each in- 
dividual a general readiness to accept or oppose anti-Semitic opinions and 
attitudes, is it not possible roughly to rank individuals on a dimension rang- 
ing from extreme to mild anti-Semitism, to a middle point representing in- 
difference, ignorance or mixed feelings, to mild and then to extreme 
tfraft-anti-Semitism? The belief that this was possible led to the construction 
of a scale for measuring anti-Semitism, a scale that was at the same time 
broad enough to include most of the main content of anti-Semitic ideology. 
And the success of this scale made it possible to investigate quantitative rela- 



CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN. 43 

tions of anti-Semitism and numerous other variables, including factors con- 
ceived to have a determining role. 

Various explanations for such talk against the Jews as that found in Mack’s 
interview have been suggested: that this is largely a true appraisal of the 
Jews, that he has had specific unpleasant experiences from which he has 
overgeneralized, that he is merely repeating what is common talk among 
his associates, particularly those who have prestige for him, that he feels 
more or less frustrated in his economic, social, and professional aspirations 
and takes it out on the Jews, that he seeks to rationalize his own failures 
and weaknesses by placing responsibility on a suitable outgroup, and so on. 
While giving due attention to these hypotheses, the procedure in the present 
study was to postpone questions of determination and, instead of asking why 
he talks this way about Jews, to discover first how he talks about other 
people. The aim was to understand as fully as possible the nature of the 
readiness in the subject before inquiring into its sources. If the features found 
in his discussion of anti-Semitism are not found in his discussion of other 
groups, then his anti-Semitism has to be explained in and of itself. If, on 
the other hand, trends found in his thinking about Jews are found also in his 
thinking about other groups, then it is these trends which have to be ac- 
counted for, and any theory which explained only the anti-Semitism would 
be inadequate. 


2. GENERAL ETHNOCENTRISM 

It was noted in Mack’s discussion of Jews that he tends to think in ingroup- 
outgroup terms: he seems to think of the Jews as constituting a relatively 
homogeneous group that is categorically different from the group to which 
he feels that he belongs. A logical next step was to explore further his con- 
ception of his own group, and to inquire into his opinions and attitudes con- 
cerning various other groups. 

In the interview with this man the general topic of imagery and attitudes 
concerning minority groups was introduced by inviting him to discuss his 
own ingroup belongingness. Most striking in this discussion Is the stereo- 
typed way in which he speaks of the Irish and of the groups with which 
they are contrasted. Each ethnic group is regarded as a homogeneous entity, 
and little mention is made of exceptions. There is no attempt to explain 
how the groups came to be as they are, beyond the assumption of different 
“blood strains.” What a person is like depends on how much “Irish” or other 
“strain” he has in him. The Irish have certain approved traits — quick temper, 
easy spending, ability to make people laugh and be happy— and certain traits 
which he regards as faults — lackadaisicalness and laziness. 

It is interesting to compare this ingroup appraisal with his appraisal of 
the Jews, who are described in the same terms but who are conceived of as 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


44 

lacking the good traits of the Irish. Also noteworthy is the contradiction in 
his attitude toward ambition and power: whereas he criticizes it in the out- 
group, he regrets its lack in the ingroup. The problem for him is not how to 
eliminate an unequal distribution of power, but how to make sure that the 
bulk of power is in the right (ingroup) hands. Whereas a major fault of the 
Jews as noted above is their “clannishness” and their failure to assimilate, the 
existence of an unassimilated Irish strain is “enjoyable.” Once again, some- 
thing for which Jews are blamed is seen as a virtue in the ingroup. Both in- 
groups and outgroups are thought of in the same general terms; the same 
evaluative criteria are applied to groups generally, and a given characteristic, 
such as clannishness or power, is good or bad depending on what group 
has it. 

Unfortunately, there was not time to explore the subject’s ideas concern- 
ing the other groups which he mentions among his dislikes— Austrians, Jap- 
anese, Filipinos— nor to inquire how far this list might have been expanded. 
Even by itself, however, the fact that the subject rejects other groups just as 
he rejects the Jews is important. 

Larry’s first remark calls attention to the fact that views about people 
and groups may be distorted or at least influenced by personal factors. Mack, 
on the other hand, shows little such self-orientation or self-awareness; he does 
not suggest that his confident generalizations might have any of the possible 
inaccuracies of personal opinions, nor does he feel obliged to account for 
them on the basis of real experience. One might ask whether such differences 
in the degree of intraception , i.e., the inclination to adopt a subjective, 
psychological, human approach to personal and social problems, do not as 
a general rule distinguish nonethnocentric from ethnocentric individuals. 

Characteristics notable in Mack’s ideology concerning minorities but rela- 
tively lacking in that of Larry might be described as follows: (a) Stereo- 
typy— the, tendency mechanically to subsume things under rigid categories, 
(b) The idea that groups are homogeneous units which more or less totally 
determine the nature of their numbers. This places the responsibility for 
intergroup tensions entirely on outgroups as independent entities. The only 
question asked is how outgroups can change in order to make themselves 
acceptable to the ingroup; there is no suggestion that the ingroup might 
need to modify its behavior and attitudes. Larry, in contrast, places the re- 
sponsibilities primarily on the ingroup and urges understanding and educa- 
tion within the ingroup as the basis for solving the problem, (c) The 
tendency to explain group differences in terms of “blood strain”— how quick 
a temper a man has depends on how much Irish he has in him. This is in 
contrast to Larry’s attempt at explanation in social, psychological, and his- 
torical terms, (d) Mack favors total assimilation, by outgroups, as well as 
total segregation of those outgroup members who refuse to assimilate. Larry, 
for his part, seems neither to threaten segregation nor demand assimilation. 



CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN 45 

He says he wants full “social equality” and interaction, rather than dominance 
by the ingroup and submission by outgroups, (e) Since he is relatively free 
of the stereotypes about ingroups and outgroups, and since groups are not 
his units of social description, Larry stands in opposition to Mack’s tendency 
to think of groups in terms of their coherence and in terms of a hierarchical 
arrangement with powerful ingroups at the top and weak outgroups at the 
bottom. 

The question, raised earlier, of whether an individual who is against 
Jews tends to be hostile to other minority groups as well is answered in the 
case of one man at least. Mack rejects a variety of ethnic groups. And 
Larry, for his part, is opposed to all such “prejudice.” The first question for 
research, then, would be: Is it generally true that a person who rejects one 
minority group tends to reject all or most of them? Or, is it to be found 
more frequently that there is a tendency to have a special group against 
which most of the individual’s hostility is directed? How broad is the ethno- 
centric rejection, that is to say, how many different groups are brought 
within the conception of outgroup? Are they extranational as well as intra- 
national? What are the main objective characteristics of these groups? What 
traits are most commonly assigned to them by ethnocentric individuals? 
What imagery, if any, applies to all outgroups, and what is reserved for par- 
ticular outgroups? Is the tendency, found in Mack but not in Larry, to 
make a rigid distinction between the ingroup and the outgroup, common in 
the population at large? Are Mack’s ways of thinking about groups— rigid 
categories, always placing blame on the outgroup, and so forth— typical of 
ethnocentric individuals? 

If ethnocentrism is conceived of as the tendency to express opinions and 
attitudes that are hostile toward a variety of ethnic groups and uncritically 
favorable to the group with which the individual is identified, then is it pos- 
sible to rank individuals according to the degree of their ethnocentrism, as 
was proposed in the case of anti-Semitism? This would make it possible to 
determine the quantitative relations of ethnocentrism to numerous other 
factors— in the contemporary social situation of the individual, in his history, 
and in his personality. But, to pursue the general approach outlined above, it 
seems best first to explore further the outlook of the ethnocentric individual 
before raising fundamental questions of determination. What of his opinions 
and attitudes concerning other groups than ethnic or national ones? How 
does he approach social problems generally? 

3. POLITICS 

In his discussion of politics Mack deals at considerable length with the 
attributes of what for him is the outgroup. The structure and dynamics 
of the outgroup are conceived as follows. It is closely cohesive and power- 
seeking. Power is sought as an end in itself, and to attain it any means may 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


46 

be employed, no matter how wasteful or harmful to others. Selfishness and 
money-mindedness are important aspects of this power drive. At the same 
time, however, he ascribes to the outgroup characteristics which are the 
opposite of powerful: it is inefficient (shows bungling and confusion), waste- 
ful and poorly organized; this inadequacy is attributed to the “fact” that 
the power arrangements within it are inadequate, with no clear authority 
and with lieutenants who are both too few and too carelessly selected. In 
addition to organizational weakness there is also physical weakness. (The 
reference to Roosevelt’s physical ability brings to mind the argument of 
his political opposition that he was physically too weak to carry the burdens 
of a wartime president.) A further attribution of weakness to the New Deal 
is the idea of Roosevelt’s submissiveness toward more powerful leaders— “he 
would come out second-best in a contest with Winnie,” his ideas came from 
Hoover, and it is implied that he would lose out with Stalin if the latter did 
not play fair with us. 

Parenthetically, it may be noted that there is an apparent inconsistency 
between Mack’s general ethnocentrism and his acceptance of Stalin. This 
apparent discrepancy may possibly be explained in terms of our subject’s 
attitude toward power: his admiration for power is great enough so that 
he can accept and momentarily ally himself with a distant outgroup when 
that group is not seen as a direct threat to himself. It is probably a safe guess 
that like many who supported cooperation with Russia during the war, this 
man’s attitude has now changed, and Russia is regarded as a threat to the 
ingroup. 

Mack’s conception of the relations between the outgroup and the ingroup 
is simple: the outgroup with its selfish, materialistic, power-seeking -drives, 
on the one hand, and its inefficiency and weakness on the other, is out to 
control and exploit the ingroup— to take power from it, to take over its 
functions, to grab all the credit, to seduce people into its fold by skillful 
manipulation, in short, to weaken the ingroup and run everything itself, for 
its own narrow, selfish ends. 

When he comes to the political ingroup, Mack speaks only of admired 
characteristics, and the only political agencies discussed are the man, Dewey, 
and the army. The ingroup characteristics fall in exactly the same dimensions 
as do those ascribed to the outgroup, sometimes being identical and some- 
times the exact opposite. Whether there is identity or reversal seems to follow 
a simple rule: those outgroup characteristics which have an aspect of power 
are kept intact in the ingroup, only now they are regarded as good, whereas 
for each outgroup characteristic signifying weakness or immorality there 
is an ingroup characteristic signifying the opposite. 

To consider the reversals first, the inefficiency of the New Deal is in 
direct contrast to Dewey’s clear-cut, straightforward approach. Roosevelt’s 
“skillful politics” is the opposite of Dewey’s frankness and honesty-to-the- 



CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN 47 

death. Roosevelt’s submission to stronger leaders is in contrast to Dewey’s 
determined overcoming of obstacles and to General Marshall’s indomitable 
firmness. The organizational confusion of the outgroup is to be corrected 
by the concentration of power in a small, closely knit organization having 
clearly defined levels of authority with a strong leader at the top and a cabinet 
of carefully chosen lieutenants. 

It becomes clear, then, that the only real difference between the ingroup 
and the outgroup is the greater weakness of the latter. Leaving aside the 
weaknesses of the outgroup, we find that in all other respects the concep- 
tions of outgroup and ingroup are identical: both seek to concentrate power 
in a small, cohesive organization the only purpose of which is to maintain 
itself. While the outgroup is accused of selfishness and materialism, the only 
virtues of the ingroup are the honesty and efficiency of its methods; there is 
no reference to its ends. 

Whatever the ingroup aims might be, however, they will presumably 
benefit the ingroup, for Mack tells us that one of the reasons for supporting 
Dewey is that “he would think of the average people,” with whom the sub- 
ject seems to be identified. We know from Mack’s discussion of ethnic 
groups that “average” is not an all-inclusive conception, but rather an ingroup 
from which he excludes a large proportion of the population. We see also 
that wealthy people are excluded from his concept of average. That this 
latter is not typical equalitarianism, however, is shown by his desire to 
become a corporation lawyer, and by his favoring a form of stratified social 
organization which in the economic sphere would— far from averaging things 
out— perpetuate the present distribution of wealth. This would seem to 
place the subject on the conservative side. Certainly, he quotes with ap- 
proval many of the slogans of contemporary American conservatism, and 
he tells us that Dewey is to be supported because he is “interested in main- 
taining the old government traditions.” Yet there is reason to believe that his 
conservatism is not of the traditional kind. The type of centralized control 
which he favors is certainly out of keeping with traditional conservative 
principles of free competition and restriction of government’s functions. 
Indeed, there is a suggestion that his apparent conservatism is in reality a 
kind of anticonservatism. We may note his remark “if we maintain our 
present system of government, and I think we will for a time, some things 
will have to be altered.” Why should he suggest that our system of govern- 
ment might not be maintained, and why does he think that at best it will be 
maintained only for a time ? He seems to give us the answer himself, for the 
changes which he suggests as a means of maintaining the conservative tradi- 
tion are actually changes which would overthrow it entirely. 

The main points considered so far are Mack’s attribution of both power 
and weakness to the outgroup and of only power to the ingroup. It must be 
noted, however, that weakness, too, is thought of as existing in the ingroup, 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


48 

though in a different form. Thus, when Mack describes the OWI as a power- 
seeking behemoth, the War Department is pictured in a situation of distress: 
“And all the time our department was crying for personnel.” Again, Dewey’s 
campaign is seen as a sort of struggle between David and Goliath, in which 
the clean-cut, straightforward younger man loses only because of the over- 
whelming power and lack of scruple which opposes him: “It was skilful 
politics that enabled the old guard to win. Considering his obstacles, Dewey 
did very well. In ordinary times he would have had a landslide.” This im- 
agery of persecution is expressed not only in Mack’s political thinking but 
also in his discussion of himself and his life in Washington. There is a clear 
note of self-pity in his remarks that he “worked many hours overtime for 
no pay,” that when war was declared he “worked for thirty-seven hours 
straight,” and that “living conditions were terrible.” 

It is important to note that weakness in Mack and his group is only implied 
in these statements. What he seems to be trying to tell us is that in so far as 
the ingroup might appear to be weak at anytime, this is due only to persecu- 
tion by an outgroup that is momentarily— and unfairly— stronger. It is im- 
portant to note further that his feelings of being persecuted do not lead 
to sympathy for other persecuted people nor to any inclination to eliminate 
persecution generally, but only to the thought that justice would consist 
in his group becoming the powerful one. Here, as is typical of people with 
persecution fantasies, Mack believes that he (his group) is essentially strong 
but is at the same time in a weak position; he can solve this dilemma only by 
attributing evil (dishonesty, unfairness, and so on) and undeserved power 
to his opponent. His desire to be attached to the same kind of power which 
he decries in the outgroup is expressed in his wanting to be “close to the 
center of things,” and “know about the background” of important daily 
events, to be in on “the secret committees.” 

Turning now to Larry, it may be noted that perhaps the most striking 
aspect of his remarks about politics is their lack of organization and of con- 
viction. This is in contrast to his ideas in other ideological areas, such as 
minority questions, which show a relatively high degree of organization 
and firmness. However, even in his brief, casual utterances about politics 
we can see a different orientation from that found in Mack. True, there is 
here, as in their preferences for political labels, a certain amount of surface 
similarity— both men show general conservatism and the usual conservative 
accusations against the New Deal. But it is precisely this superficial similarity 
that makes the differences stand out. 

The main over-all difference lies in the absence from Larry’s thinking of 
those features which led us to question Mack’s conservatism. Thus, Larry’s 
thinking does not revolve around the ingroup-outgroup distinction: there 
is no conception of the ingroup as a static homogeneous entity which is 



CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN 49 

beyond any criticism; nor is the outgroup conceived of as an aggregation 
of weak and evil people who through plotting and conniving are able to use 
their undeserved power in persecuting the ingroup. Indeed, he can even 
identify himself with a man, Wallace, who not only belongs to the outgroup 
but is, according to the prevalent propaganda, “inefficient” to boot. 

As the second main difference between the two men, there is more posi- 
tive evidence that Larry’s conservatism is genuine, in the sense that it is a 
means for furthering his admitted material motives. Since he intends to 
become a businessman, he supports the political party which seems to offer 
the most help to business. This is in contrast to Mack, who stresses the con- 
ventional ideal of unselfishness in order, we may suppose, to disavow his 
underlying interest in power. 

Larry finds difficulty, to be sure, in reconciling this “realism” with the 
idealism which he expresses in other areas. But he is aware of this difficulty— 
and here again he differs from Mack. The latter speaks as if his utterances 
were sufficiently objective, so that there need be no reference to himself or 
to the possibility of personal determinants of opinion. Larry, on the other 
hand, is aware that his views reflect things within himself as well as external 
reality, and that consequently they are tentative, approximate, and possibly 
self-contradictory. He feels it necessary to explain the origins of his views, 
he can admit some inner conflict, and consider the possibility that he may 
not have acquired his views in the most intelligent way. While these features 
may prevent this subject from being very militant about anything, they 
would seem to insure him against reactionism. 

If two men whose ideas about politics are as different as those of Mack 
and Larry nevertheless have the same political alignment (they both agree 
with the Willkie-type Republicans and the Anti-New Deal Democrats), 
and if they understand what these party labels mean, then it might be in- 
quired whether political alignment bears any relationship to ethnocentrism. 
Or, if the two are related, what ideology concerning minority groups is 
more typical of the Willkie-type Republicans and the Anti-New Deal Demo- 
crats, that of Mack or that of Larry? 

And what of those who favor the New Deal Democrats or the traditional 
Republicans? According to theory, we should expect political liberalism to 
go with relative freedom from prejudice, and political conservatism, at least 
the extreme form of it, i.e., reaction, to go with ethnocentrism. Indeed, con- 
siderable evidence that this is true already exists. A natural step in the present 
study, therefore, was to conceive of a continuum extending from extreme 
conservatism to extreme liberalism and to construct a scale which would 
place individuals along this continuum. This would permit the determination 
of the quantitative relations of conservatism to anti-Semitism and to general 
ethnocentrism. It is apparent from consideration of what Mack and Larry 



50 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

have to say, however, that (a) conservatism is not a simple, unidimensional 
attitude but a complex ideological pattern, and (b) that the relations of 
conservatism to ethnocentrism are by no means one to one. 

It cannot be supposed, of course, that all the aspects of conservatism- 
liberalism have been touched upon in the spontaneous remarks of these two 
subjects. It will be the task of research not only to determine whether the 
features expressed here— conservative values, pro-business attitudes, and the 
like— commonly go together, but to inquire what other opinions, attitudes, 
and values might belong to an over-all conservative or liberal pattern. What, 
in other words, is the composition of conservative (or liberal) politico- 
economic ideology? Is there a coherent pattern that is broad enough to 
include what Mack and Larry have in common and at the same time to 
permit a delineation of such differences as exist between them? And which 
is more important for the problem of potential fascism, conservatism in 
general, or the special kind of conservatism seen in Mack but not in Larry? 

It could well be argued that Mack’s position is not conservative at all but 
rather pseudoconservative. Although, as noted above, he professes belief in 
the tenets of traditional conservatism, it is clear that he considers it “time 
for a change,” and there is a strong implication that the kind of change he 
desires is one which would abolish the very institutions with which he appears 
to identify himself. It has frequently been remarked that should fascism 
become a powerful force in this country, it would parade under the banners 
of traditional American democracy. Thus, the slogan “rugged individual- 
ism” which apparently expresses the liberal concept of free competition 
among independent and daring entrepreneurs, actually refers more often to 
the uncontrolled and arbitrary politics of the strongest powers in business— 
those huge combines which as a matter of historical necessity have lowered 
the number of independent entrepreneurs. It is clear that an investigation 
of antidemocratic trends must take this phenomenon into account. Is it pos- 
sible to define pseudoconservatism in objective terms, to diagnose it in the 
individual and to estimate its strength within a population? Is it true that 
pseudoconservatism is generally to be found, as in the case of Mack, asso- 
ciated with ethnocentrism and other antidemocratic trends? 

On any ordinary scale for measuring conservatism, the pseudoconserva- 
tive would probably obtain a high score; he would agree with the usual 
statements of conservative opinions, attitudes, and values. How to frame 
scale items that will reflect the conservative facade and at the same time 
induce the subject to reveal his underlying readiness for radical change is a 
particularly challenging technical problem. We are confronted here with 
a clear instance of those different levels of expression which were discussed 
earlier. The only recourse, it would appear, is to employ clinical techniques 
that go more or less directly to the deeper tendencies, and give sufficient 
understanding of them, so that it becomes possible to formulate scale items 



CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN 5 1 

which permit the indirect expression, on the surface, of these deeper ten- 
dencies. 

The Politico-Economic Conservatism (PEC) scale described in Chapter 
V is designed to give an estimate of the individual’s general readiness to 
express conservative ideology and at the same time to distinguish the pseudo- 
conservative from the others. For a fuller description of the different pat- 
terns of conservative ideology, however, other scales and other techniques 
have in addition to be relied upon. With this approach it becomes possible 
to investigate the relations of pseudoconservatism to “genuine conservatism” 
—if, indeed, the distinction can be maintained. The question may be raised 
as to whether there is any deeply ingrained conservatism, within the indi- 
vidual, that does not derive its energy in large part from the personal need 
to curb one’s own rebellious tendencies. 

In any case, it is clear that Mack’s political ideology is different from 
Larry’s. The differences stand out with particular clarity when Mack’s dis- 
cussion of politics is considered in relation to what he has to say about Jews 
and other ethnic groups. Just as his anti-Semitism could not be understood 
or evaluated until his ideas about other groups had been examined, so did his 
politics come into focus when seen against the background of his ethno- 
centrism. It seems particularly significant that he talks about the New Deal, 
the Civil Service, and the OWI in the same way that he talks about Jews. 
This seems strongly to suggest that we are faced here not with a particular 
set of political convictions and a particular set of opinions about a specific 
ethnic group but with a way of thinking about groups and group relations 
generally. Is the manner of this thinking— in rigid categories of unalterable 
blacks and whites— usually to be found in people who are prejudiced against 
minority groups? Is there any group, save those with which the subject is 
identified, that is safe from the kind of total rejection and potential hostility 
that is found here? Is there a general relationship between the manner of 
thinking and the content of thinking about groups and group relations? In 
Mack the stereotyped thinking is accompanied by imagery of power versus 
weakness, moral purity versus moral lowness, and hierarchical organization. 
Are these trends commonly associated in the general population? If so, is 
the relationship a dynamic one, and what might be its nature? 

It would appear that the more a person’s thinking is dominated by such 
general tendencies as those found in Mack, the less will his attitude toward a 
particular group depend upon any objective characteristics of that group, 
or upon any real experience in which members of that group were involved. 
It is this observation that draws attention to the importance of personality 
as a determinant of ideology. And if personality has this crucial role in the 
broad areas of attitude and opinion that have been considered, might we 
not expect it to influence a subject’s thinking in all areas that are important 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


5 2 

to him? It would be impossible to know what Mack thinks about everything, 
but we may examine his ideas about religion, income, and vocation and see 
if something approaching a total view emerges. 

4. RELIGION 

The interviewer, in questioning Mack about religion, took into considera- 
tion the following statement which he had made on his questionnaire. In 
response to the question, “How important, in your opinion, are religion 
and the church?” Mack wrote, “Especially important for people who need 
sustenance or who are highly erratic. I have had to rely too much on my 
own ability for the necessities of life to devote a great deal of time to the 
spiritual.” Larry, for his part, wrote, “Very important as the center of moral 
teachings.” 

The question may be raised at once whether rejection of religion is usually 
associated with an antidemocratic outlook as is the case with Mack, while 
acceptance of religion, as in Larry, usually goes with relative freedom from 
prejudice. There would appear to be some reason to expect that the general 
trend would be the other way around, that freedom from religious dogmas 
would go with political “liberalism” and hence with freedom from prejudice, 
while acceptance of religion would go with conservatism and authoritarian- 
ism and, hence, probably with ethnocentrism. In all likelihood the problem 
is not so simple. It may be that the mere acceptance or rejection of religion 
is not so important as how the individual accepts or rejects it, that is to say, 
the pattern of his ideas about religion. This is a matter upon which the 
interviews ought to throw some light. 

It may be noted in the interviews of Mack and Larry that both men were 
subjected to a rather usual type of conventional pressure, that in both cases 
the application of this pressure was mainly a maternal function, and that in 
the background of both cases there is a mixture of Methodist and Catholic 
influences. Mack makes more of a distinction between father and mother 
roles than does Larry, and it seems important to Mack that his father was 
good without going to church. In the mind of the latter subject, church 
and mother seem to be rather closely identified and to stand for that which 
weak or dependent people turn to when they need sustenance. But it may be 
asked whether, in turning away from the church, Mack has not had to sub- 
stitute something else in its stead; and that is authority, as represented first 
by the father and later by a “God who is strictly a man.” It can be supposed 
that the kind of religious feeling which this “great man” arouses in the 
subject is like that he experienced when he sat next to General Marshall 
and heard him talk. Similar deference toward sufficiently high authority 
can be noted in Mack’s respect for the sayings of Christ, which are con- 
trasted with the “not first hand” words of the apostles. 

But Mack’s respect for authority comes into conflict with his explicit 



CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN 53 

value of independence. How to reconcile the two is the problem with which 
his religious ideology is mainly concerned. Apparently he can get some 
feeling of independence by asserting that he is stubborn and hard-headed, 
and by rejecting people who “need sustenance.” And if the authority is suf- 
ficiently powerful, it becomes possible to submit without losing altogether 
the sense of independence. If dependence and passivity are to be accepted, 
it must be in circumstances that are beyond his control, e.g., when he is sick. 

It is strongly suggested that as much as Mack would like to be inde- 
pendent he would also like to be dependent. He does admit to liking the 
music and singing in church; he seems to make a point of telling us how 
much sickness he has had, and when he emphasizes that he has had to rely 
upon himself since an early age, we may detect not only a note of pride but 
a note of self-pity. An underlying need for dependence (passivity, sym- 
pathy, comfort) , in conflict with the desire to maintain masculine pride and 
self-respect, could give rise to an exaggerated value for independence; and 
it could at the same time receive a measure of gratification, in a somewhat 
disguised form, through submission to a powerful authority. This would 
seem to be a fairly clear instance in which a deeper-level need operates to 
affect manifest strivings, openly expressed values, and ideas about God and 
man. 

Since Mack does not belong to any organized religious sect, he does not 
speak of his group versus various religious outgroups. It is to be noted, how- 
ever, that he seems to regard all religious people as constituting an outgroup, 
ascribing to them some of the same features— weakness, dependence— which 
he sees in Jews and in the New Deal. 

Larry, for his part, regards religion as a valued part of everyday living 
rather than something that is called for in a particular situation. For him it 
has the general function of promoting high ethical standards, good living, 
and progress rather than the limited function of offering relief in times of 
acute distress. Moreover, in contrast with Mack, who identifies morals with 
“the man,” Larry conceives that the moral values of religion reside in the 
church as an institution. A further contrast between the two men lies in the 
fact that Larry accepts religion in general yet is able to criticize it, while Mack 
generally rejects it without offering specific criticisms. In criticizing the 
content of religion on intellectual grounds, Larry shows that he will not be 
likely to use it for reactionary aims. Mack exhibits his characteristic all-or- 
nothing approach to ideological matters, and without any analysis of content 
concentrates on people— Christ, the apostles, God the man— who are to be 
totally accepted or totally rejected. 

Regardless of whether or not the general acceptance or the general rejec- 
tion of religion should be found in a larger population to be associated with 
antidemocratic trends, it will be necessary to inquire whether the distin- 
guishing features in the thought of Mack and Larry are generally significant. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


54 

No attempt was made in the present research to measure any variables in the 
area of religious ideology (although, as noted above, subjects did state in 
their questionnaires how important they considered religion and the 
Church) ; instead, effort was directed to the discovery of patterns of religious 
thought in the interview discussions of the subjects. How common in our 
society are the patterns found in Mack and Larry? Do these patterns gener- 
ally bear the same kinds of relations to thought in other areas as they do in 
these two cases? What other patterns of religious thought may be discovered 
and what is their significance for democracy or its opposite? Do the differ- 
ent religious sects represent systems of belief that are related to prejudice? 
Do “racial” and “religious prejudice” go together and have the same sig- 
nificances, as has been so frequently supposed? 

In the case of Mack, a deep-lying personality need, dependence, comes into 
prominence when religion is under discussion. Is it possible to demonstrate 
dynamic relationships between such needs and ideological systems? In other 
areas as well as in the area of religion? Also in the case of Mack, there 
appears to be a close connection between religious ideology and the pattern 
of family relations. Is this generally the case? It may be that the pattern of 
family relations is an important determinant not only of religious thought 
but of ideology in general. 

5. VOCATION AND INCOME 

The previous discussion has shown that Mack tends to think of the struc- 
ture of any group as a hierarchy of power. It is not surprising therefore to 
find that he thinks of our total society as being organized along the same 
lines. In government he sees increasing centralization and regimentation, 
i.e., more and more control vested in fewer and fewer people, and in eco- 
nomics, important developments will continue to be in the hands of the big 
capitalists. However much objective truth there may be in this view, the 
significant point is that Mack considers the state of affairs he describes as, 
if not desirable, inevitable. Given this kind of social organization, then the 
thing to do is to “go up,” “to open doors,” to be “on the inside,” and this 
is the main trend in his vocation-income ideology. He wants to belong to 
or be “in with” the ruling group. It is not so much that he himself wants to 
dominate, but rather that he wants to serve powerful interests and so partici- 
pate in their poaver. It was seen in his discussion of politics that the power 
attributes of the ingroup and of the outgroup were, in his mind, the same; 
it is not too much to hypothesize now that the reason he accuses the Jews, 
the Civil Service, the OWI, the New Deal of wishing to establish a closely 
cohesive and selfishly exploitive ingroup is that he wishes to do the same 
thing himself. It is necessary to add, of course, that he cannot fully justify 
to himself such an antidemocratic wish and so, under its sway but unable 
to admit it, he sees it as existing not in himself but in the world around him. 



CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN 55 

Larry, it appears, is also identified with business and would like to go up 
in the world, but there the similarity between the two subjects ends. Whereas 
for Larry, going up means improving his lot in the ordinary sociological 
sense, for Mack it means changing his status in a hierarchy; in other words, 
Larry thinks of climbing primarily in its individual sense, while Mack thinks 
of it more in its class sense. Larry does not seem to mind competing, once 
he has been given support at the start, while Mack would get there by sub- 
mitting to those who are going to win. Larry is frankly interested in money 
and a lot of it while Mack is moralistically temperate in this regard; Larry 
wants pleasure, Mack seems more interested in power; Larry feels that the 
main object of work and efficiency is that one might the sooner take a vaca- 
tion and enjoy life; Mack appears to regard these things as ends in them- 
selves. In general, both subjects express ideas that are closely in accord with 
their political ideologies. 

Another difference between the two men, which may be of considerable 
importance, lies in Larry’s greater awareness of his motivation: he is entirely 
open about his desire for money and pleasure, his willingness to accept sup- 
port, his susceptibility to influence by his family, his interest in social prestige. 
There is little reason to doubt that these motives are just as strong, if not 
considerably stronger, in Mack, but it is plain that he does not fully accept 
them as parts of his self. It might be inquired whether this tendency to 
keep important personality needs out of consciousness, to allow them to 
remain ego-alien, is not a regular feature of the potential fascist. 

In the present area of vocation-income, perhaps more than in any of the 
others, the subjects’ discussion of what they believe is closely bound up with 
discussion of what, more or less explicitly, they want. Personality needs, in 
other words, have a central place in the whole picture. To climb socially, 
to be independent, to have pleasure and security, to attain a sense of power 
by submitting to those who have it— these are personality needs. The moral- 
istic depreciation of money, the oversolicitous but unrealistic attitude toward 
poor people— these may be regarded as defense mechanisms, devices whereby 
needs which conflict with the stronger need to maintain self-respect are 
held in check. It is plain that with respect to a number of these variables 
Mack and Larry are widely different; and it was one of the main hypotheses 
of the present research that there are numerous such variables with respect 
to which prejudiced and unprejudiced individuals differ generally and which 
in individuals at either extreme go together to form a psychologically mean- 
ingful pattern. In proceeding to test this hypothesis the interview protocols 
of numerous ethnocentric and anti-ethnocentric subjects— as well as other 
sources— were combed for just such distinguishing features, and these were 
then put into the form of questionnaire scale-items for testing with groups 
of subjects. A liking for “nice equipment,” a fondness for hunting and 
fishing, a preference for living in a small town— numerous such small but 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


5 6 

suggestive items were given consideration. On the assumption that potential 
antidemocracy at the personality level is a general trend with respect to 
which individuals differ quantitatively, a scale for the measurement of this 
trend was constructed in the manner of those described above. This supplied 
the means for demonstrating on a mass basis some of the relationships which 
appear to exist in the two individuals under discussion. 

Even if factors of personality did not come explicitly to the fore at par- 
ticular points in the interviews with these two men, the conception of 
personality would be forced upon us by observation of the consistency with 
which the same ideas and the^ same modes of thought recur as the discussion 
turns from one ideological area to another. Since no such consistency could 
conceivably exist as a matter of sociological fact, we are bound to conceive 
of central tendencies in the person which express themselves in various 
areas. The concept of a dynamic factor of personality is made to order for 
explaining the common trend in diverse surface manifestations. For ex- 
ample, a need for power in the personality is ready to express itself in any 
area of social relations. It may be suggested, in this connection, that where 
social psychologists have not so far given a great deal of attention to person- 
ality it is because they have not studied total ideology. Specific social atti- 
tudes if adequately measured will undoubtedly be found to correlate with 
a variety of external and contemporary factors, and if one studies only spe- 
cific attitudes he may easily be led to the belief that this is all there is to it. 
Consistent trends in the person can only be revealed by subjecting him to a 
variety of stimuli, or placing him in a number of different situations, or 
questioning him on a wide array of topics; but if this is done, then, according 
to the present hypothesis, consistent trends, i.e., personality, will always be 
revealed. 

The varied stimuli to which subjects of the present study were subjected 
were not limited to questions of attitude, opinion, and value; there were the 
clinical techniques designed especially for bringing the factors of personal- 
ity to light. The aim was to go as far as possible toward demonstrating the 
covariation of personality factors and the ideological trends discussed above, 
toward discovering as many as possible of the features which distinguished 
the potentially antidemocratic individual. Given a relationship between a 
personality variable and an ideological trend, it was usually assumed that 
the causal sequence was from the former to the latter— on the grounds that 
the formation of personality was genetically earlier, the most important 
structures going back to childhood. This led to an attempt to learn some- 
thing about the determination of the potential fascist in childhood, through 
investigation of the early social environment. But this is a subject which can- 
not be considered until much later; not until the several areas of ideology 
have been analyzed in detail. 



CHAPTER III 


THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 

Daniel J. Levinson 


A. INTRODUCTION 

One of the most clearly antidemocratic forms of social ideology is preju- 
dice, and within this context anti-Semitism provides a fruitful starting point 
for a social psychological study. As a social movement, organized anti- 
Semitism presents a major threat to democracy: it is one of the most powerful 
psychological vehicles for antidemocratic political movements and it pro- 
vides, for reasons which are largely politico-economic and beyond the scope 
of this discussion, perhaps the most effective spearhead for a frontal attack 
on our entire social structure. 

From a psychological viewpoint as well, anti-Semitism is particularly 
important and revealing. Much that psychologically oriented writers have 
already said about anti-Semitism and about fascism suggests that the deeper 
psychological sources of these ideologies are very similar. The irrational 
quality in anti-Semitism stands out even in casual everyday discussions. The 
fact that people make general statements about “the Jew,” when the Jews 
are actually so heterogeneous— belong to every socioeconomic class and 
represent every degree of assimilation— is vivid evidence of this irrationality. 
This striking contrast between the Jews’ actual complexity and their sup- 
posed homogeneity has suggested the hypothesis that what people say against 
Jews depends more upon their own psychology than upon the actual charac- 
teristics of Jews. For example, when the belief that Jews possess financial 
power out of all proportion to their numbers persists in the face of over- 
whelming evidence to the contrary, one is led to suspect not only that the 
individual holding this belief has an unusual preoccupation with power but 
also that he might himself wish to assume the kind of power which he sup- 
poses Jews to have. It is clear that research into the emotional sources of 
ideology is required for the understanding of such phenomena as these. 

These considerations, which suggest the advantage of making anti- 
Semitism a point of departure for research, were also some of the hypotheses 
that guided the research as a whole. The study of anti-Semitism may well 

57 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


58 

be, then, the first step in a search for antidemocratic trends in ideology, in 
personality, and in social movements. 

Anti-Semitism is conceived here as an ideology, that is, as a relatively 
organized, relatively stable system of opinions, values, and attitudes concern- 
ing Jews and Jewish-Gentile relations. More specifically, it involves negative 
opinions regarding Jews (that they are unscrupulous, clannish, power- 
seeking, and so on); hostile attitudes toward them (that they should be ex- 
cluded, restricted, kept subordinate to Gentiles, and so on) ; and moral values 
which permeate the opinions and justify the attitudes. 

Numerous questions concerning the structure and content of anti- 
Semitism were raised in Chapter II. These and other questions guided the 
construction of an opinion-attitude scale for the measurement of anti- 
Semitic ideology. The source material for the scale included: the writings 
of virulent anti-Semites; technical, literary, and repoitorial writings on anti- 
Semitism and fascism; and, most important, everyday American anti-Semitism 
as revealed in parlor discussion, in the discriminatory practices of many 
businesses and institutions, and in the literature of various organizations 
which are trying, with small success, to counter numerous anti-Semitic 
accusations by means of rational argument. 

This scale, like the others used in the present research, had several func- 
tions. It yielded a quantitative measure which could be correlated with 
measures of other, theoretically related, variables. It provided a basis for the 
selection of criterion groups of extreme high and low scorers, who could 
then be subjected to intensive clinical study. It permitted, as part of a larger 
questionnaire, a relatively detailed, quantifiable study of large groups of 
subjects. Finally, it was constructed in such a way that statistical analysis of 
its properties might reveal much of the structure, scope, and content of anti- 
Semitic ideology. 

B. CONSTRUCTION OF THE ANTI-SEMITISM (A-S) SCALE 

An opinion-attitude scale is a series of statements dealing with a given 
topic, in this case anti-Semitic ideology. The subject is asked to respond to 
each item by agreeing or disagreeing. His responses are converted into scores 
in such a way that a high score indicates a great amount of what is being 
measured— for this scale, anti-Semitism— a low score the opposite. The scor- 
ing procedure is discussed below (Section C). 

The Likert method of scaling (73, 84) was used. It is easier to apply and 
requires fewer items than the Thurstone method ( 1 1 8) , but yields equally 
high reliabilities and generally comparable results (22, 84). It was desired to 
avoid the assumptions and difficulties in the use of judges which the latter 
method entails. Also, since it was anticipated that in further stages of the 
research the items might be modified in wording, it was highly desirable to 



THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 59 

avoid the repeated use of judges. A measure of intensity of opinion and 
attitudes is obtained, in the Likert method, by having the subject indicate 
the degree of his agreement or disagreement with each item; this makes 
possible a more adequate determination of subtle group and individual dif- 
ferences, and facilitates the qualitative analysis of individual response pat- 
terns. This method also permits the covering of a wider area of opinions and 
attitudes. Finally, the Likert technique of item analysis (see below) was 
particularly suited to the general theoretical approach of this research. 

1. GENERAL RULES IN ITEM FORMULATION 

The procedure used for selecting and formulating items, in contrast to a 
frequent practice, did not involve the testing of several hundred items as a 
basis for selection of a final short scale. Rather, fifty-two items were formu- 
lated and all of these were used throughout the statistical analysis of the 
preliminary form of the scale. (To anticipate a result presented below, only 
a few items were statistically inadequate, and this inadequacy is interesting 
in its own right.) In successive stages of the research there were, however, 
no qualms about modifying, deleting, or adding items. 

The present scale differs from most opinion-attitude scales in that it con- 
tains only negative items, that is, they all state the anti-Semitic position 
regarding the issue in question. The reasons for the use of negative items 
only and an answer to some possible criticisms, presented in detail in a previ- 
ous publication (71), may be summarized here. One advantage of negative 
items is that they tend to be more discriminating. Also, negative items can 
be so phrased that they express subtle hostility without seeming to offend 
the democratic values which most prejudiced people feel they must main- 
tain. Since the scale attempts to measure receptivity to anti-Semitic ideology, 
it seemed reasonable to use only anti-Semitic statements in the scale. The 
main argument against the present procedure is that it might produce a “set” 
or mechanical tendency consistently to agree or to disagree. This argument 
is answered on the ground that (a) most individuals show variability of 
response, as indicated by item intercorrelations averaging .3-4; (b) there is 
a tendency to vary in order to avoid an extreme position; (c) very similar 
results have been obtained in later stages of the present research when an 
all-negative scale is inserted randomly into a longer series containing positive 
items; and, most important, (d) since the “set” argument implies that high 
scorers are not necessarily anti-Semitic nor lows anti-anti-Semitic, the final 
test is the validity of the scale, that is, the demonstration that high scorers are 
significantly different from low scorers in a variety of meaningful charac- 
teristics. The scale does, as will be shown later, have considerable validity. 

Since the A-S scale, like the others, was intended not only to provide a 
quantitative measure of an ideology but also to aid in the qualitative descrip- 
tion of that ideology (and of individual ideological patterns), its construe- 



6o 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


tion followed certain general rules. These rules had to do with (a) the 
formulation of individual items, and (b) the division of the total scale into 
subscales. 

Since the scale should not, for practical reasons, include more than about 
fifty items (preferably fewer in later forms), each item should be maximally 
rich in ideas and there should be a minimum of duplication in wording or 
essential content of items. While the items are therefore often more complex 
than those of many other scales, this is not considered a fault. At the same 
time, they should be clear and unambiguous in meaning, so that agreement 
is ordinarily an expression of anti-Semitism, disagreement an expression of 
its opposite. It is important to avoid “double-barreled” items, that is, items 
with two parts such that a subject might agree with one part and disagree 
with the other, and thus not know how to respond. 

Extreme prejudice of a violent and openly antidemocratic sort does not 
seem to be widespread in this country, especially in the middle class. 1 Since 
the present scale is intended to measure everyday, “garden variety” anti- 
Semitism, the items were formulated in such a way as to reflect the prevalent 
forms in which anti-Semitism now appears. 

Most prejudice as one finds it in business, housing, and general social inter- 
action is pseudo democratic rather than openly antidemocratic; this distinc- 
tion plays an important role in the analysis of anti-Semitic ideology which 
guided the construction of the scale and the formulation of items. An idea 
may be considered openly antidemocratic when it refers to active hatred, 
or to violence which has the direct aim of wiping out a minority group or 
of putting it in a permanently subordinate position. A pseudodemocratic 
idea, on the other hand, is one in which hostility toward a group is somewhat 
tempered and disguised by means of a compromise with democratic ideals. 
Pseudodemocratic statements about Jews are often introduced by qualifying 
phrases which deny hostility or which attempt to demonstrate the demo- 
cratic attitude of the speaker, e.g., “It’s not that I’m prejudiced, but. . . 
“Jews have their rights, but. . . .” 

This pseudodemocratic fagade is probably relatively untouched by most 
of the current literature attacking prejudice as “race hatred,” “un-Ameri- 
can,” “un-Christian intolerance,” and the like. There is no hatred in the 
surface content of these attitudes and they have been squared with certain 
democratic values in such a way that the individual holding them apparently 
feels little if any sense of antidemocracy. And, of course, merely to label this 
way of thinking as un-American will not change it, first, because labeling is 
not enough, and second, because such thinking falls within one of the 
main streams of American social history and can be found to some extent in 
most sections of American life. It is necessary, rather, to understand its 

1 This is shown by various public opinion polls and reportorial studies although compre- 
hensive and rigorously obtained data are lacking. It is also indicated by results from the 
present study. 



THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 


6 I 

external sources in American culture and tradition as well as the inner sources 
which make certain individuals particularly receptive to these cultural 
pressures. 

It is probably an error to regard the pseudodemocratic compromise as a 
mere surface disguise used deliberately and skillfully by prejudiced people 
to camouflage their actual, conscious antidemocracy. The person whose 
approach to social problems is pseudodemocratic is actually different now 
from one whose approach is now openly antidemocratic. For various reasons 
—perhaps because he has internalized democratic values, perhaps out of 
conformity to present social standards— the pseudodemocrat does not now 
accept ideas of overt violence and active suppression. The concern with 
democratic values, and the resistance to antidemocratic ones, must be con- 
sidered as psychologically and socially important facts in any attempt to 
understand prejudice, American variety. Undoubtedly very many people 
who are now pseudodemocratic are potentially antidemocratic, that is, are 
capable in a social crisis of supporting or committing acts of violence against 
minority groups. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the attempted 
compromise with democratic values: because it may reveal a democratic 
potential which might, if supported and strengthened, ultimately gain the 
upper hand; because it colors the whole fabric of pseudodemocratic social 
thinking; and, since this compromise reflects the prevalent forms of overt 
discrimination in this country— quotas, segregation, exclusion, denial of op- 
portunities— to understand the former may help to combat the latter. 

If patterns of ideology are conceived as falling on a dimension ranging 
from democratic to antidemocratic, then the pseudodemocratic ones prob- 
ably stand somewhere between the center and the antidemocratic extreme. 
This is, of course, not a simple dimension: there are diverse approaches 
falling into each of these broad categories, and the dimension is not a simple 
quantitative one like length or weight. A change of certain trends in an indi- 
vidual may produce a qualitative reorganization and ideological change from 
one extreme of this dimension to the other. The task is to understand the 
total individual and, especially in the case of the pseudodemocrat, to gauge 
the psychological potential for both democracy and open antidemocracy. 

Most of the items of the A-S scale have been formulated as pseudodemo- 
cratically as possible. This consideration was, in fact, one of the main reasons 
for the use of negative items only. The following rules have been followed 
in general: Each item should be made appealing and “easy to fall for” by 
avoiding or soft-pedaling or morally justifying ideas of violence and obvious 
antidemocracy. Much use is made of qualifying phrases such as “One trouble 
with Jewish . . “There are a few exceptions, but . . “It would be to the 
best interests of all if . . . ,” in order to avoid a categorical, aggressive con- 
demnation. Items are worded so that the person can add at the end: “but I am 
not anti-Semitic.” Seeming tentativeness is introduced by qualifications such 
as “it seems that,” “probably,” “in most cases.” Finally, an attempt is made to 



6 2 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

give each statement a familiar ring, to formulate it as it has been heard many 
times in everyday discussions. 

To the extent that the above rules have been followed, pseudodemocratic 
subjects are likely to make scores on this scale as high, or nearly as high, 
as those of the antidemocratic ones. It will be the task of later techniques, 
both questionnaire-style and clinical, to provide further information con- 
cerning the distinctions between these two groups of subjects. 

2. MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS OR AREAS: THE SUBSCALES 

The general rules of item formulation just described refer primarily to 
the formal structure of items and can be applied to each item irrespective of 
the content of the ideas expressed in it. The content of the items was largely 
determined by the general conception of anti-Semitic ideology and the 
specific hypotheses discussed above. Several subscales were formed in order 
to insure systematic coverage of the various aspects conceived and in order 
to test certain hypotheses. The subscales cannot be thought of as dealing with 
components of anti-Semitism in any statistical sense; they are not based on 
statistical treatment of prior results, nor was any intensive correlational 
analysis of the present items made. The subscales are, rather, convenient ways 
of conceiving and grouping items. 

anti-Semitism scale contains five subscales dealing respectively with 
imagery (opinions) of Jews as personally offensive and as socially threaten- 
ing-, with attitudes concerning what should be done to or against Jews; and 
with the opposing views that Jews are too seclusive or too intrusive (as- 
similative). These subscales are probably not entirely independent either 
in a statistical sense or with respect to the actual content of the items; indeed, 
there is some question as to whether certain items may not equally well have 
been placed in a different subscale than the one to which they were assigned. 
Nevertheless, each subscale as a whole seems to deal with a fairly definite 
and definable phase of anti-Semitism. The subscales will now be discussed 
in order. 

a. Subscale “Offensive” (S 0 ). This subscale is presented in Table 
i (III). (The items are numbered as they appeared in the total scale, which 
was given in two parts, I and II, with twenty-six items in each part; thus, I— 4 is 
Item 4, part I.) The items describe various “Jewish traits” which are offensive, 
unpleasant, and disturbing. Stereotypy is implicit in items ascribing faults 
to “Jews”— implicitly, “all” or “most” Jews-without recognition of individual 
differences. It is explicit in item I-13, which specifically states that “Jews are 
pretty much alike” and which indicates an image of “the Jews” as a stereo- 
typed model of the entire group. 

What are the characteristics of this stereotyped image? If the other items 
offer an adequate description, “the Jew” is extravagant, sensual, conceited 
and overaggressive; but he is also “smelly,” shabby, and unconcerned with 
his personal appearance. Jews are accused of being excessively Jewish, so to 



THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 


63 


TABLE 1 (III) 

Anti-semitism Subscale “Offensive” 

I-i. Jews seem to prefer the most luxurious, extravagant, and sensual way of 
living. 

I-4. A major fault of the Jews is their conceit, overbearing pride, and their idea 
that they are a chosen race. 

I-7. No matter how Americanized a Jew may seem to be, there is always some- 
thing basically Jewish underneath, a loyalty to Jewry and a manner that is 
never totally changed. 

I-io. Districts containing many Jews always seem to be smelly, dirty, shabby, and 
unattractive. 

I-13. There are a few exceptions, but in general Jews are pretty much alike. 

I- 1 6. The Jews shoud not pry so much into Christian activities and organizations 

nor seek so much recognition and prestige from Christians. 

II- 1. The Jews should make sincere efforts to rid themselves of their conspicuous 

and irritating faults if they really want to stop being persecuted. 

II-4. There is something different and strange about Jews; one never knows what 
they are thinking or planning, nor what makes them tick. 

II-7. The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they gradu- 
ally give it a typical Jewish atmosphere. 

II- 10. I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew. 

II- 1 3. One general fault of Jews is their overaggressiveness, a strong tendency 
always to display their Jewish looks, manners, and breeding. 

II-16. Jews should be more concerned with their personal appearance, and not be 
so dirty and smelly and unkempt. 

speak, but their attempts to assimilate into “Christian” activities are re- 
garded as prying. Jewish faults are considered the main cause of anti- 
Semitism (Item II— 1 ), which would be eliminated if the Jews made sincere 
efforts to improve. However, there is some doubt that Jews can ever quite 
manage to be fully Americanized (Item I-7). Item II-10, “I can hardly 
imagine myself marrying a Jew,” is included here because it seems to refer 
more to an unpleasant image than to a clear-cut, hostile attitude. It represents 
a pseudodemocratic equivalent to Item I- 15 in the “Attitude” subscale (see 
below). Are people consistent in their general agreement (or disagreement) 
with these items? This will be seen in the results presented below, 
b. Subscale “Threatening” (S T ). These items, presented in Table 
2 (III), describe the Jews as a dangerous, dominating, corrupting social group. 
They are asserted to have great power economically and politically, and to 
be unscrupulous and conniving in their dealings with Gentiles. They do not 
like hard work (Item II-n) but at the same time they lower the general 
standard of living by doing menial work and by living under low standards 
(Item I-14). In addition to being simultaneously rich and poor, powerful 
and parasitic, they are also at once capitalists and revolutionaries. In their 
lack of patriotism they are a threat to the nation, and in general they are a 
threat to civilization. 

Apart from the enormous complexity of “the Jew” so described, there is 
something fantastic in the idea that a group so small numerically can be so 



6 4 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE 2 (III) 

Anti-semitism Subscale “Threatening” 

1-2. The Jews must be considered a bad influence on Christian culture and civili- 
zation. 

1-5 . One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and con- 
nive, so that a Gentile doesn’t have a fair chance in competition. 

1 - 8 . Jewish power and control in money matters is far out of proportion to the 
number of Jews in the total population. 

I-n. There are too many Jews in the various federal agencies and bureaus in 
Washington, and they have too much control over our national policies. 

I- 1 4. Jews tend to lower the general standard of living by their willingness to do 

the most menial work and to live under standards that are far below average. 

II- 2. War shows up the fact that the Jews are not patriotic or willing to make 

sacrifices for their country. 

II-5. Jews may have moral standards that they apply in their dealings with each 
other, but with Christians they are unscrupulous, ruthless, and undependable. 

II-8. The Jew’s first loyalty is to Jewry rather than to his country. 

II- 1 1 . Jews seem to have an aversion to plain hard work; they tend to be a parasitic 
element in society by finding easy, nonproductive jobs. 

II- 1 4. There seems to be some revolutionary streak in the Jewish make-up as shown 
by the fact that there are so many Jewish Communists and agitators. 

powerful and so basic a social threat. This imagery in extreme cases seems to 
be an ideological expression of underlying paranoid trends; in Mein Kampf, 
for example, the Jews are regarded not only as “base and inferior” but also 
as having “germicidal potency” and “devilish cunning.” However, most 
American anti-Semites are undoubtedly not psychotic or paranoid in the 
usual psychiatric sense. The personality trends related to this kind of imagery 
in Americans will be dealt with in later chapters. 

c. Subscale “Attitudes” (S a ). All the attitudes contained in this sub- 
scale (see Table 3 (III)) are regarded as negative or hostile to the Jews 
as a group, and this hypothesis is generally borne out by the statistical re- 
sults. These attitudes were intended to represent varying degrees of dis- 
crimination ranging from simple avoidance to suppression and attack, with 
intermediate actions of exclusion, quotas (partial exclusion), and segregation. 
In order to cover many forms of discrimination, a list of the major social 
areas in which it occurs was used in the formulation of items. These areas are: 
employment, residence (neighborhoods, apartment houses, hotels), educa- 
tion and professions, marriage, social organizations, politics, the nation. Item 
II— 2 1 is a good example of pseudodemocracy: it assumes that the Jews are 
actually a threat (imagery: powerful, offensive, etc.) and suggests that the 
Jews solve “their own problem”— implicitly, that if they do not limit them- 
selves voluntarily, the Gentiles may be forced to more drastic action. A per- 
son can agree to this, and many have, in the name of tolerance and democracy. 
It is, nevertheless, essentially an anti-Semitic idea: first, because as a matter 
of fact, it correlates well with the scale as a whole, and second, because it is 
based on hostile imagery, suppressive attitudes, and the assumption that anti- 



THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 65 

TABLE 3 (III) 

Anti-semitism Subscale “Attitudes” 

I-3. In order to maintain a nice residential neighborhood it is best to prevent 
Jews from living in it. 

1-6. Colleges should adopt a quota system by which they limit the number of 
Jews in fields which have too many Jews now. 

I-9. A step toward solving the Jewish problem would be to prevent Jews from 
getting into superior, profitable positions in society, for a while at least. 

I- 12, The Jewish problem is so general and deep that one often doubts that demo- 
cratic methods can ever solve it. 

I- 1 5. It is wrong for Jews and Gentiles to intermarry. 

I- 1 8. It is best that Jews should have their own fraternities and sororities, since 
they have their own particular interests and activities which they can best 
engage in together, just as Christians get along best in all-Christian fraterni- 
ties. 

I-2 1. It is sometimes all right to ban Jews from certain apartment houses. 

I- 24, Anyone who employs many people should be careful not to hire a large per- 

centage of Jews. 

II- 3. It would hurt the business of a large concern if it had too many Jewish em- 

ployees. 

II-6. The best way to eliminate the Communist menace in this country is to con- 
trol the Jewish element which guides it. 

II-9. In order to handle the Jewish problem, Gentiles must meet fire with fire and 
use the same ruthless tactics with the Jews that the Jews use with the Gen- 
tiles. 

II- 12. It is not wise for a Christian to be seen too much with Jews, as he might be 
taken for a Jew, or be looked down upon by his Christian friends. 

II-15. One of the first steps to be taken in cleaning up the movies and generally 
improving the situation in Hollywood is to put an end to Jewish domination 
there. 

II-18. Most hotels should deny admittance to Jews, as a general rule. 

II-21. Jewish leaders should encourage Jews to be more inconspicuous, to keep 
out of professions and activities already overcrowded with Jews, and to 
keep out of the public notice. 

II-24. It would be to the best interests of all if the Jews would form their own na- 
tion and keep more to themselves. 

Semitism is merely a rational reaction of Gentiles to the intrinsic badness of 
Jews. 

d and e. Subscales “Seclusive” (S s ) and “Intrusive” (SJ. It is often 
stated that the cause of anti-Semitism lies in the fact that “J ews are different,” 
and it has often been suggested that assimilation is the only solution to “the 
Jewish problem.” Indeed, many Jews have taken the same point of view, 
attempting in every way possible to take over the prevalent culture of their 
local American community, and becoming anxious over all signs of “foreign 
Jewishness” in their family and friends. This is not the place to discuss the 
problem of the adjustment of Jews and other minorities to American cul- 
ture. The question raised here concerns instead the psychology of anti- 
Semites: Is Jewish assimilation what they really want? If Jews behaved in a 
thoroughly conforming manner, would this satisfy the anti-Semites? One 



66 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


indication that these questions will receive negative answers lies in the fact 
that highly assimilated Jews usually meet the same sort of discrimination 
that others do. Another sign in the same direction is the stereotypy so com- 
mon in anti-Semitism. To the extent that a person is reacting to his self- 
created label or image of “the Jew” rather than to the particular Jewish 
individual with whom he is dealing, it matters but little what the Jew in 
question is like. The sign “no Jews wanted” is entirely insensitive to the 
virtues or faults of the specific individual applying for a job. 

TABLE 4 (III) 

Anti-semitism Subscales “Seclusive vs. Intrusive” 

A. “Seclusive” 

I-5. One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and con- 
nive, so that a Gentile doesn’t have a fair chance in competition. 

I-17. Much resentment against Jews stems from their tending to keep apart and 
to exclude Gentiles from Jewish social life. 

I-20. The Jews should give up their un-Christian religion with all its strange cus- 
toms (kosher diet, special holidays, etc.) and participate actively and sin- 
cerely in the Christian religion. 

I-2 3. Jews tend to remain a foreign element in American society, to preserve 
their old social standards and to resist the American way of life. 

II-13. One general fault of Jews is their overaggressiveness, a strong tendency 
always to display their Jewish looks, manners, and breeding. 

II-17. The Jewish districts in most cities are results of the clannishness and stick- 
togetherness of Jews. 

II-20. Jewish millionaires may do a certain amount to help their own people, but 
little of their money goes into worthwhile American causes. 

II-23. The Jews keep too much to themselves, instead of taking the proper inter- 
est in community problems and good government. 

B. “ Intrusive ” 

I- 1 1. There are too many Jews in the various federal agencies and bureaus in 
Washington, and they have too much control over our national policies. 

I-16. The Jews should not pry so much into Christian activities and organiza- 
tions nor seek so much recognition and prestige from Christians. 

I-19. One thing that has hindered the Jews in establishing their own nation 
is the fact that they really have no culture of their own* instead, they tend 
to copy the things that are important to the native citizens of whatever 
country they are in. 

I- 25. Jews go too far in hiding their Jewishness, especially such extremes as 

changing their names, straightening noses, and imitating Christian manners 
and customs. 

II- 3. It would hurt the business of a large concern if it had too many Jewish 

employees. 

II-7. The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they grad- 
ually give it a typical Jewish atmosphere. 

II- 19. The true Christian can never forgive the Jew r s for their crucifixion of 
Christ. 

11-2 5. When Jews create large funds for educational or scientific research 
(Rosenwald, Heller, etc.), it is mainly due to a desire for fame and public 
notice rather than a really sincere scientific interest. 



THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 6j 

In an attempt to quantify attitudes regarding assimilation, two subscales 
representing opposing sides on this issue were included in the A-S scale 
(Table 4(111)). Subscale “Seclusive” (S s ) takes the stand that Jews are too 
foreign and unassimilated; it accuses them of being clannish, of keeping apart, 
and of not being sufficiently concerned with other groups and other ways. 
The implication of these items is that Jews ought to assimilate more, that 
they could solve the problem of anti-Semitism themselves by entering more 
actively into American life and by conforming more closely with American 
conventions and standards. (Two of these items were also included in other 
subscales, Item I-5 being also in S T , and II— 1 3 in S 0 ). 

Subscale “Intrusive” (S^, on the other hand, accuses the Jews of over- 
assimilation and overparticipation. When Jews seem to be conforming in 
social behavior they are actually just “imitating” and “hiding their Jewish- 
ness” (Item I-2 5). Their attempts to join organizations are based on prestige- 
seeking and the desire to pry (Item I-16). Their admission into the govern- 
ment or into neighborhoods only leads to attempts by them at control and 
domination of non-Jews (Items I— 1 1, II— 7). Their seeming philanthropy is 
based on selfish motives (Item II-25). And finally, they lack a culture of 
their own and must therefore copy or “sponge on” the culture of the 
country in which they live (Item I- 19). The implication of these items, in 
direct contrast to those in the “Seclusive” subscale, is that Jews ought to keep 
more to themselves and to develop a culture, preferably even a nation, of 
their own. (Four of these items were also included in other subscales, Item 

I- 1 1 being also in S T , I- 16 and II— 7 in S 0 , and II— 3 in S A .) 

f. “Neutral” Items Not in a Subscale (Table 5 (III)). Four items in 
the A-S scale were not included in any of the five subscales. This illustrates 

TABLE 5 (III) 

“Neutral” Items in the Anti-semitism Scale 
I-22. One big trouble with Jews is that they are never contented, but always 
try for the best jobs and the most money. 

1-2 6. There is little doubt that Jewish pressure is largely responsible for the 
U. S. getting into the war with Germany. 

II- 22. There is little hope of correcting the racial defects of the Jews, since these 

defects are simply in their blood. 

II-26. On the whole, the Jews have probably contributed less to American 
life than any other group. 

the fact that the subscales represent “components” of anti-Semitism only in 
a general prestatistical sense. A correlational analysis of the scale would very 
probably indicate components containing these four items, since they deal 
with significant aspects of anti-Semitic ideology and since they correlate well 
with the total scale. 

Item II-22 is worth noting in particular; it takes a hereditarian-racist stand 
concerning the “defects” of the Jews and, like all hereditarian approaches, 
is pessimistic regarding improvement of group relations along democratic 



68 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


lines. To the person who feels that Jews have special and basic faults which 
cannot be changed, all talk about ending discrimination, about improving 
Je wish-Gentile relations, and about “what Jews can do to help themselves” 
is meaningless and irrelevant. The fact that many people who take this 
“Jewish immutability” viewpoint also tend to tell the Jews how they must 
change is another sign of the illogicality of anti-Semitism. This idea of the 
insolubility of the problem is also expressed in Items I-7 and I-12. 

3. THE TOTAL ANTI-SEMITISM (A-S) SCALE 
The total anti-Semitism scale consists of fifty-two items and comprises all 
the items in the five subscales as well as the four neutral items discussed above. 
Both parts of the scale are present in Table 6 (III), with instructions to sub- 
jects, just as it was administered. 

TABLE 6 (III) 

The Total Anti-semitism Scale 
Public Opinion Questionnaire A 

This is an investigation of general public opinion concerning Jewish people. 
The following are statements with which some people agree and others disagree. 
Please mark each one in the left margin, according to the amount of your agree- 
ment or disagreement, by using the following scale: 

+ 1: slight support, agreement — 1: slight opposition, disagreement 

+2: moderate support, “ —2: moderate opposition, 

+3: strong support, “ —3: strong opposition, 

1. Jews seem to prefer the most luxurious, extravagant, and sensual way 

of living. 

2. The Jews must be considered a bad influence on Christian culture and 
civilization. 

3. In order to maintain a nice residential neighborhood it is best to pre- 
vent Jews from living in it. 

___ 4. A major fault of the Jews is their conceit, overbearing pride, and their 
idea that they are a chosen race. 

5. One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and 

connive, so that a Gentile doesn’t have a fair chance in competition. 

6. Colleges should adopt a quota system by which they limit the number 

of Jews in fields which have too many Jews now. 

7. No matter how Americanized a Jew may seem to be, there is always 

something basically Jewish underneath, a loyalty to Jewry and a man- 
ner that is never totally changed. 

8. Jewish power and control in money matters is far out of proportion 

to the number of Jews in the total population. 

9. A step toward solving the Jewish problem would be to prevent Jews 

from getting into superior, profitable positions in society, for a while 
at least. 

10. Districts containing many Jews always seem to be smelly, dirty, shabby, 

and unattractive. 

11. There are too many Jews in the various federal agencies and bureaus in 

Washington, and they have too much control over our national pol- 
icies. 



THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 69 

t 2. The Jewish problem is so general and deep that one often doubts that 
democratic methods can ever solve it. 

13. There are a few exceptions, but in general Jews are pretty much alike. 

14. Jews tend to lower the general standard of living by their willingness 

to do the most menial work and to live under standards that are far 
below average. 

15. It is wrong for Jews and Gentiles to intermarry. 

16. The Jews should not pry so much into Christian activities and or- 
ganizations nor seek so much recognition and prestige from Christians. 

17. Much resentment against Jews stems from their tending to keep apart 

and to exclude Gentiles from Jewish social life. 

18. It is best that Jews should have their own fraternities and sororities, 

since they have their own particular interests and activities which they 
can best engage in together, just as Christians get along best in all- 
Christian fraternities. 

19. One thing that has hindered the Jews from establishing their own 

nation is the fact that they really have no culture of their own; instead, 
they tend to copy the things that are important to the native citizens 
of whatever country they are in. 

20. The Jews should give up their un-Christian religion with all its strange 

customs (kosher diet, special holidays, etc.) and participate actively 
and sincerely in the Christian religion. 

21. It is sometimes all right to ban Jews from certain apartment houses. 

22. One big trouble with Jews is that they are never contented, but always 

try for the best jobs and the most money. 

23. Jews tend to remain a foreign element in American society, to preserve 

their old social standards and to resist the American way of life. 

24. Anyone who employs many people should be careful not to hire a large 

percentage of Jews. 

25. Jews go too far in hiding their Jewishness, especially such extremes 

as changing their names, straightening noses, and imitating Christian 
manners and customs. 

26. There is little doubt that Jewish pressure is largely responsible for 

the U. S. getting into the war with Germany. 

The Total Anti-semitism Scale 
Public Opinion Questionnaire S 

This is an investigation of general public opinion concerning Jewish people. The 
following are statements with which some people agree and others disagree. Please 
mark each one in the left margin, according to the amount of your agreement or 
disagreement, by using the following scale: 

+ 1: slight support, agreement — 1: slight opposition, disagreement 

+2: moderate support, “ —2: moderate opposition, “ 

+ 3: strong support, “ —3. strong opposition, 

1. The Jews should make sincere efforts to rid themselves of their con- 
spicuous and irritating faults, if they really want to stop being per- 
secuted. 

2. War shows up the fact that the Jews are not patriotic or willing to 

make sacrifices for their country. 

3. It would hurt the business of a large concern if it had too many Jewish 

employees. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

4. There is something different and strange about Jews; one never knows 
what they are thinking or planning, nor what makes them tick. 

5. Jews may have moral standards that they apply in their dealings with 
each other, but with Christians they are unscrupulous, ruthless, and 
undependable. 

6. The best way to eliminate the Communist menace in this country is to 
control the Jewish element which guides it. 

7. The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they 
gradually give it a typical Jewish atmosphere. 

8. The Jew’s first loyalty is to Jewry rather than to his country. 

9. In order to handle the Jewish problem, Gentiles must meet fire with 
fire and use the same ruthless tactics with the Jews that the Jews use 
with the Gentiles. 

10. I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew. 

11. Jews seem to have an aversion to plain hard work; they tend to be a 
parasitic element in society by finding easy, nonproductive jobs. 

12. It is not wise for a Christian to be seen too much with Jews, as he 
might be taken for a Jew, or be looked down upon by his Christian 
friends. 

13. One general fault of Jews is their overaggressiveness, a strong tendency 
always to display their Jewish looks, manners, and breeding. 

14. There seems to be some revolutionary streak in the Jewish make-up as 
shown by the fact that there are so many Jewish Communists and 
agitators. 

15. One of the first steps to be taken in cleaning up the movies and gen- 
erally improving the situation in Hollywood is to put an end to 
Jewish domination there. 

16. Jews should be more concerned with their personal appearance, and 
not be so dirty and smelly and unkempt. 

17. The Jewish districts in most cities are results of the clannishness and 
stick-togetherness of Jews. 

18. Most hotels should deny admittance to Jews, as a general rule. 

19. The true Christian can never forgive the Jews for their crucifixion of 
Christ. 

20. Jewish millionaires may do a certain amount to help their own peo- 
ple, but little of their money goes into worthwhile American causes. 

21. Jewish leaders should encourage Jews to be more inconspicuous, to 
keep out of professions and activities already overcrowded with Jews, 
and to keep out of the public notice. 

22. There is little hope of correcting the racial defects of the Jews, since 
these defects are simply in their blood. 

23. The Jews keep too much to themselves, instead of taking the proper 
interest in community problems and good government. 

24. It would be to the best interests of all if the Jews would form their 
own nation and keep more to themselves. 

25. When Jews create large funds for educational or scientific research 
(Rosenwald, Heller, etc.) it is mainly due to a desire for fame and 
public notice rather than a really sincere scientific interest. 

26. On the whole, the Jews have probably contributed less to American 
life than any other group. 


THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 7 1 

The scale is intended to measure the individual’s readiness to support or 
oppose anti-Semitic ideology as a whole. This ideology consists, according 
to the conception on which the scale was based, of stereotyped negative 
opinions describing the Jews as threatening , immoral , and categorically dif- 
ferent from non-Jews , and of hostile attitudes urging various forms of re- 
striction , exclusion , and suppression as a means of solving “ the Jewish prob- 
lem .” Anti-Semitism is conceived, then, as a general way of thinking about 
Jews and Jewish-Gentile relations. 

Can one legitimately speak of a readiness in the individual to accept anti- 
Semitic ideology as a whole? More concretely, can it be expected that people 
will respond relatively consistently to such varied scale items? These are 
questions which must be answered empirically. The content and generality 
of anti-Semitic ideology, and the adequacy with which it is measured by the 
present scale are indicated below by a statistical analysis of scale results. 
The validity of the scale will be indicated by correlations of the scale with 
measures of other, theoretically related, variables, and by analysis of the 
responses of the two subjects discussed in Chapter II. 

C. RESULTS: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SCALE 

The procedure used for all scales in the present research was to allow six 
choices of response for each item: slight, moderate, or strong agreement, 
and the same degrees of disagreement, with no middle or neutral category. 
Each subject indicated the degree of his agreement by marking + i, +2, or 
+3, disagreement by — 1, —2, or — 3. 

It seemed likely that three degrees of agreement or disagreement could 
easily be distinguished by the subjects, and that three degrees gave them the 
best chance to record clearly felt differences in strength of agreement or 
disagreement. Certainly the data indicate that all six response categories were 
used. The “don’t know” category has been a source of difficulty and con- 
troversy in many fields of psychological research (121). In techniques 
which permit its use, it tends to be the most frequent choice. Without it, 
the subject must take a stand one way or the other, although the categories 
of slight agreement and slight disagreement permit him to be nearly neutral. 
If a subject is unable to decide, he can, of course, omit the item; but there 
were never more than 2 to 3 per cent omissions among subjects taking the 
questionnaire, and never more than 1 per cent of the group to which it 
was administered failed to fill it out adequately. Furthermore, the fre- 
quency with which the “moderate” and “strong” categories were used indi- 
cates that the items were relatively unambiguous. 

The responses were converted into scores by a uniform scoring system. 
Since higher scores were intended to express increasing anti-Semitism, all 
responses were scored as follows: 



72 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


— 3=1 point +1=5 points 

— 2 = 2 points 4~ 2 — 6 points 

— 1=3 points 4~3 — 7 points 

It will be noted that the scoring skips from 3 to 5 points between — 1 and 
4 -i. Four points represented the hypothetical neutral response, and was 
assigned when the item was omitted. It probably makes little difference 
statistically that this scheme was used rather than a six-point one in which 
4 - 1 w r ould receive 4 points. This scheme was used mainly because there 
seemed to be a greater psychological gap between — 1 and 4-1 responses 
than between any other tw r o adjacent responses. It was also convenient in 
marking the omissions. 

A person’s scale score is simply the sum of his scores on the single items. 
For the 52 items the scores can range between 52 points (1 point on each 
item, indicating strong opposition to anti-Semitism) and 364 points (7 
points on each item, strong anti-Semitism) . When the scale score is divided 
by 52 we obtain the mean score per item; thus, a total score of 78 can 
also be stated as a score per item of 1.5. 

The initial results obtained with the A-S scale have been published else- 
where (71). The present discussion will deal with the second administration 
of the scale; on this occasion the questionnaire administered contained, in 
addition to the A-S scale, most of the other techniques which were used in 
subsequent stages of the research. The questionnaire was administered in 
April, 1944, to a class in Introductory Psychology at the University of Cali- 
fornia. It was given as a routine class activity in two parts, separated by an 
interval of one week; Part I (Questionnaire A) of the A-S scale was given in 
the first session, Part II (Questionnaire S) in the second. The class was de- 
signed for nonmajors in psychology and w T as rather heterogeneous with re- 
spect to major subject and year in school. 

In view of a possible sex difference, the questionnaires of men and women 
w T ere separated for statistical purposes. Due to wartime conditions, however, 
there were fewer than thirty men in the group, so that no statistics on men 
were computed. The data presented here are based on the questionnaires of 
the 144 women subjects, including nineteen members of major minorities: 
Jews, Negroes, Chinese, and foreign-born. In all subsequent groups the sta- 
tistical analysis was limited to the questionnaires of native-born, white, non- 
Jewish Americans. 


1. RELIABILITY 

The reliability and related statistical properties of the A-S scale and its 
subscales are presented in Table 7 (III). The total-scale reliability of .92 
meets rigorous statistical standards, especially in view of the fact that Part 
II was administered a week after Part I. (The reliability of the scale on the 



TABLE 7 (HI) 

RELIABILITY OF THE ANTI-SEMITISM SCALE AND ITS SUBSCALES 


THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 


w 

w 


moo 

mom 


oo CM CM CM 


^ om 

CM CO CO 


CO CO CO CO 


Eh 

CG 


©1 

U3 


a. 


CO CM CM CM 


Cl ^ ^ 

m co co 


CO Tf CM 
CM CO CO 


O CM CM CM W W 1-* 


co cm m 
o m co 


CO CM CM CM 


C- c- O 


CO 

o 


co m o 
co m co 


CM CO CO CM »H »-< »H 


CD CO CO 
CO CO 


CO CM CM CM 
CM 


o 

to 


I w *m O 


M 3 O 


<h +j d 

as ~ 
■a -i 3 
01 01 E 
t- 

a) *- o 

4-1 O «M 

co o 
■H 3 
CCS 
•moo 
6 *- 
TJ Tlffi 
G 01 I 
m 3 
CM G G 
-HOE 
G u 
£ 31 d 

m ai 
cu g a, 
x: co 

-u m 


> 

3 * 

Cfl M 

■M 

•M < 

S cd 

M 

-M M 

t- 

G 

G 3' 

cd >> 

01 

. O 

-M CD 

CM 

01 ‘H 

s: 

CM 

M 01 4-> 

G -u 

o 

M M G 

*#H 


0 -H , 

Cl ecS CD 

s 

>» s «- 
moo 
■H o 

73 4-1 

01 cn cu 
s ai x: 

•H a H 
G CT 

■u 

m «w • « 

O O M 01 
E H 
m ch oi xi 
G h -u G 

■c d H +J 

x: 

ai 3 oi 
"O oi x: 
G 3 > -u 
o o oi 
MO 3 
ai Q) h 
M x: 


01 3 

*- a 

G 

c 


bo ai 
c H 
G g 
*- o 

M 

T3 m 
C 3 
CO M 


o 

* 

CM CM CM CM 

*M *M *—l 

o 

+J 

> 

G 

-M 

(0 

• 

pH 


c/3 





a 

•pH 

+J C 


CD 

CO 

cd 






T-H 

•pH 

</2 

. O -H 

■n 

3 


o 







> 

3 

4-1 ' 

3 

pH 

• 

(0 

• 






a> 



G 

CCJ 

(0 


CD 






to 

-M 

01 IM 


> 

G 

CD 

pH 






£2 

a 

x: ih 

M 


cd 


cd 






£2 

►m 

-M 

E 

>> 

CD 

+J 

o 






ad 

s 

4J 

01 

-U 

£ 


(0 








CM (h 

4J 

•H 



£2 






CD 


O G 

•M 

f-H 

CD 

•H 

a 






M 


CL 


•H 



CO 







cd 

co 

>> 

TJ 

£2 

+J 

(0 




C0 

/-v<M 



CO 

-M 3 

T3 

cd 


E 

M 



E <H H 

CM f-t 


Cfl 


M o 

O 

•pH 

cm 

CD 

o 



<DO i— ( 3 

O r— 1 aJ 


CD 




pH 

O 

-M 


>> 

-Q 

■P Oj XJ 

/— oi x: 


i-H 

- 

■M 00 

V 

CD 



0) 

4_5 

>> 

•iH H 

i— * X3 


Cd 

CD 

m oi 

x: 

Sh 

(0 




4-> 

ai C 

Oi C 


o 

> 

G »-■ 

4-1 


CD 

CM 

cd 

<D 

■pH 

<H P tl D 

4-1 T3 01 


w 

iH 

•M o 


a> 

3 

o 

o 

Oi 

r-H 

O o T3 > 

O T3 > 


£2 

CO 

M O 

B 


l “* 


CO 

o 

•pH 

4-1 O 01 

4-1 O 01 



3 

ai m 

<D 

-u 

cd 

M 


u 

O 

t, w 


o 

03 

pH 


CD 


> 

CD 

H 

ri 

cd 

01 


01 


O 

x: 

& 

CD 


£2 

cd 

I-M 

•pH 

.a c c c 


bo 

CD 

CD 

01 +J 

+J 

> 

CD 

E 

-M 


r— ( 

E cc? G G 

dad 

a 

£3 

CO 

x: -m 

<D 

•pH 

x: 

3 

o 


<D 

3 aj oi a> 


G 

H 

s 

H & 

X5 

bfl 

H 

G 




55 I S 55 

w d V3 

OS 

Gd 


£2 



V 




73 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


74 

first group studied, as previously published, was .98.) The two parts were 
equated in terms of the subscales, so that an equal number of items from each 
subscale appeared in each part. Parts I and II are also roughly equivalent in 
terms of mean and standard deviation. In view of the high correlation be- 
tween Parts I and II, as well as their equivalence and their high reliabilities 
(.94 and .91), it would appear that either of them alone provides as good 
a quantitative measure as does the total scale. 

It will be noted that the over-all mean is relatively low ( 140.2 as compared 
with a theoretical neutral point of 208) and that the obtained range includes 
extremely low scores but does not include the highest possible scores. The 
item analysis, as will be seen below, suggests the reason for this: despite 
our attempt to limit the scale to pseudodemocratic statements numerous items 
were still too openly or crudely prejudiced and had extremely low means 
(below 3.0). The present group of students was, however, less anti-Semitic 
on the average than the one studied earlier, the latter having a mean of 158 
and a range of 52-303. The distribution of scores in both cases was fairly 
symmetrical but platykurtic, with very little clustering of scores around the 
mean. 

The reliabilities of the total scale and of the two parts are almost matched 
by the high reliabilities of the subscales. Reliabilities of .8 to .9 are very 
satisfactory even for scales three or four times their length. 

With regard to reliability, equivalence of halves, and form of distribution, 
then, it seems safe to conclude that the A-S scale (as well as the subscales) 
provides an adequate measuring instrument. It ranks the subjects with a rela- 
tively small error of measurement along a continuum or dimension. That 
this dimension may be called general anti-Semitism must still be demonstrated 
by the data on item analysis and validity which follow. No claim is made 
that the dimension is “pure” or homogeneous. To the extent that the scale 
is valid, it provides a measure of anti-Semitism in most of its generality and 
complexity. More specifically, it may be claimed that the higher an indi- 
vidual’s score, the greater his acceptance of anti-Semitic propaganda and the 
greater his disposition to engage in anti-Semitic accusations and programs 
of one form or another. 

2. INTERCORRELATIONS OF THE SUBSCALES 

The above reliability data indicate that people are relatively consistent in 
their responses to the A-S scale and to the individual subscales dealing with 
relatively specific kinds of imagery and attitudes. Correlations among the 
subscales are shown in Table 8 (III). 

Intercorrelations of .74 to .85 are of considerable significance. The fact 
that they involve subscales dealing with so great a variety of opinions and 
attitudes is an important source of support for the hypothesis that anti- 



THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 


75 


TABLE 8 (III) 

INTERCORRELATIONS 3, OF THE A-S SUB SCALES 


Subscale 

"Threatening" 

"Attitudes" 

"Seclus ive" 

Total A-S 

" Offensive” 

.85 

.83 

. 75 

92 

"Threatening” 


.84 


.93 

"Attitudes" 



.74 

.94 

" Intrus ive” 



.74 



a These are the raw correlation coefficients. If they were corrected for 
attenuation to give the maximal value theoretically obtainable (with 
perfectly reliable instruments), they would all be well over .90. 


Semitism is a general frame of mind, a way of viewing Jews and Jewish- 
Gentile interaction. Imagery of Jews as personally offensive and as socially 
threatening, attitudes of restriction, exclusion and the like, the view that Jews 
are too assimilative and yet too clannish— these seem to be various facets of a 
broad ideological pattern. An individual’s stand with regard to one of these 
issues tends to be very similar in direction and degree to his stand with regard 
to the others*. 

The correlations of .92 to .94 between each of the three major subscales 
and the total anti-Semitism scale are high enough so that knowing an indi- 
vidual’s score on any one subscale permits one to predict with considerable 
accuracy his score on the total A-S scale. In short, while almost every sub- 
ject varies somewhat in his responses to the individual items (as will be 
shown below), almost every subject demonstrates a general degree of support 
or rejection of anti-Semitism which is relatively consistent from one type 
of accusation or attitude to another. This is not to say that all the ideas con- 
tained in the scale are of equal importance emotionally to each anti-Semite. 
It is more probable— and this view is supported by the interviews— that for 
each high scorer there are a few central opinions (imagery of Jews as cun- 
ning, power-seeking, sensual, etc.) and attitudes of primary importance; but 
these “pet” ideas seem to provide a basis or general readiness for the ac- 
ceptance of almost any anti-Semitic idea. The fact that this generality is not 
complete suggests that various patterns of anti-Semitic ideology may exist 
and might profitably be studied (as variations within the general framework 
described h6re). 

The correlation of .74 between subscales “Seclusive” and “Intrusive” 
reveals a deep contradiction in anti-Semitic ideology. As a matter of simple 
logic, it is impossible for most Jews to be both extremely seclusive and aloof 
and at the same time too intrusive and prying. This categorical, self-con- 
tradictory rejection of an entire group is, however, more than a matter of 




y6 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

faulty logic. Viewed psychologically, these results suggest a deep-lying ir- 
rational hostility directed against a stereotyped image to which individual 
Jews correspond only partially if at all. 

The illogical manner in which the hostility operates is illustrated by a 
comparison of related items from these two subscales. Thus, “Seclusive” Item 
II-20 states that rich Jews help “their own people” but not “American 
causes.” However, “Intrusive” Item II— 25 takes care of any exceptions: Jews 
donate money not out of generosity but rather out of desire for prestige and 
fame. Similarly, either Jews do not take enough interest in community and 
government (Seclusive), or when they do, they have too much control over 
national politics (Intrusive). Anti-Semitic hostility leads, then, either to a 
denial of demonstrable facts (Jewish philanthropy, smallness of number, 
etc.) or to an interpretation of them which finds the Jews at fault. 

The same self-contradictions and the same implications are evident in 
the high correlation (.74) between subscales “Seclusive” and “Attitudes.” 
It is indeed paradoxical to accuse the Jews of being clannish and aloof, and 
at the same time to urge that they be segregated and restricted. It would 
seem, then, that a general hostility and readiness to accept negative imagery 
are an essential part of the psychological functioning of anti-Semitic individ- 
uals, who can regard a great variety of specific accusations, often mutually 
contradictory, as valid. 

The reliabilities and subscale intercorrelations, taken together, permit 
several conclusions regarding the nature and inner sources of anti-Semitism. 
It is a general way of thinking in which hostile attitudes and negative opinions 
toward Jews predominate. Several patterns of imagery brought out by the 
subscales seem to be partial facets of a single broad ideological framework. 
While these ideas are relatively common today, it would appear that those 
individuals (the high scorers) who take them over most easily are different 
in their psychological functioning from those who do not. One major char- 
acteristic of anti-Semites is a relatively blind hostility which is reflected 
in the stereotypy, self-contradiction, and destructiveness of their thinking 
about Jews. 

3. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 
OF THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS 

A critical reader of the A-S scale may feel that certain items are unsatis- 
factory in one way or another: that they do not measure what the others 
measure, that everyone agrees with the ideas expressed, that certain items are 
too ridiculous to be supported by anyone, and so on. He may like a few 
items particularly and wonder how successful they were. Or he may be con- 
cerned with shortening and improving the scale and want a statistical basis 
for item selection and improvement. For these and other reasons a statistical 
analysis of the items has considerable value. 



THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 77 

The problem can be posed in statistical terms as follows. If an item is 
good, in terms of the total scale, then item scores ought to correlate well with 
total scale scores. Since few high scorers agree with all items, and since some 
low scorers agree with several items, a statistical technique is necessary to 
determine the closeness of the relationship between item score and scale 
score. The most extensive technique for item analysis is the computing of 
correlations between item scores and scale scores, especially if some sort of 
factor analysis is planned. The Likert “Discriminatory Power” technique, al- 
though statistically more limited, has a great time-saving advantage. Further- 
more, Murphy and Likert (84), obtaining both Discriminatory Powers 
and item-total scale correlations for a single scale, found a correlation of .91 
between these two measures of item value. In other words, the order of 
goodness of the items, as determined by the Discriminatory Power tech- 
nique, is practically the same as the order determined by the correlation 
technique. The Likert technique was therefore used in the present study. 

The Discriminatory Power (D. P.) of each item is obtained by the follow- 
ing procedure. Subjects whose total scores fall in the highest 25 per cent of 
the distribution are considered high scorers, while those whose scores fall in 
the lowest 25 per cent of the distribution are considered the low scorers. 

The means of the high scorers is obtained for each item and found to vary 
from item to item. Similarly for the low scorers. If an item measures anti- 
Semitism well, then anti-Semites (high scorers), as determined by the total 
scale score, will make higher scores on it than will those who are opposed 
to anti-Semitism (low scorers). The greater the difference between the 
item mean for the high scorers and that for the low scorers, the greater the 
Discriminatory Power of that item, and the better the measure of anti- 
Semitism it gives. A positive D. P. indicates that the item is anti-Semitic, in 
the sense that anti-Semites as determined by the total scale agree with the 
item to a greater degree than do unprejudiced subjects. If an item has a 
negative D. P., it has apparently been scored in reverse, since low scorers 
agree with it more than high scorers do. All items in the present scale have 
positive D. P.’s. 

The data on the item analysis of the A-S scale are presented in Table 9 
(III). Each item is identified by a key phrase, and the letters O, T, A, S, and 
I refer to the subscales Offensive, Threatening, Attitudes, Seclusive, and In- 
trusive respectively. 

The most important data on each item are the group mean and the 
D. P. The group mean reflects the general group tendency toward agree- 
ment or disagreement. A mean near 4.0 indicates that the group was pretty 
evenly divided pro and con on the issue. Group means between 3.0 and 5.0 
are likely to involve scores covering well the entire range from 1 to 7. 
Means below 3.0 indicate a strong group tendency toward disagreement, 



78 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE 9 (III) 

ANTI-SEMITISM SCALE: ITEM MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA WOMEN 

Part I 


No. 

Item 

Mear 

H.Q. 


D.P. 

Mean for 
Total Group 

1. 

(0: luxurious) 

4.44 

2.03 

2.41 

3.11 

2. 

(T: bad influence) 

2.75 

1.11 

1. 64 

1.85 

3. 

(A: keep Jews out) 

4.25 

1.03 

3.22 

2.30 

4. 

(0: conceit) 

4.50 

1.30 

3.20 

2.71 

5. 

(S,T: businessmen) 

5.86 

1.38 

4.48 

3.45 

6. 

(A: quota) 

2.89 

1.00 

1.89 

1.67 

7. 

(0: basically Jewish) 

5.78 

1.99 

3.79 

3.59 

8. 

(T: power and control) 

5.33 

2.30 

3.03 

3. 80 

9. 

(A: suppress Jews) 

3.61 

1.05 

2.56 

1. 84 

10. 

(0: dirty districts) 

2.94 

1.24 

1.70 

1.98 

11. 

(I,T: Washington) 

4.55 

1. 24 

3.31 

2.56 

12. 

(A: democratic methods) 

4.75 

1.13 

3.62 

2.76 

13. 

(0: all alike) 

5.50 

1.67 

3.83 

3.64 

14. 

(T: low living standards) 

3.00 

1.24 

1.76 

2.05 

15. 

(A: wrong to intermarry) 

4. 19 

1.19 

3.00 

2.57 

16. 

(I t 0: prying) 

3.89 

1.03 

2.86 

2.24 

17. 

(S: Jews exclude Gentiles) 

4.22 

2. 11 

2. 11 

3.53 

18. 

(A: fraternities) 

5.89 

2. 13 

3.76 

3.84 

19. 

(I: no culture) 

4.86 

1.73 

3. 13 

3.19 

20. 

(S: give up religion) 

3.03 

1.30 

1.73 

2.66 

21. 

(A: apartment houses) 

4.47 

1.30 

3.17 

2.52 

22. 

(N: never contented) 

5.42 

1.22 

4.20 

3. 17 

23. 

(S: foreign element) 

4.28 

1.38 

2.90 

2. 88 

24. 

(A: don’t hire Jews) 

5.30 

1. 19 

4. 11 

2.84 

25. 

(I: hide Jewishness) 

4.33 

1.62 

2.71 

2. 87 

26. 

(N: war with Germany) 

2.86 

1.05 

1.81 

1.69 


Mean: 

4.34 

1.42 

2. 92 

2.74 


THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 


79 


ANTI-SEMITISM SCALE: ITEM MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA WOM5N 

Part II 


No. 

Item 

Mean 

H.Q. L.Q. 

D.P. 

Mean for 
Total Group 






1 . 

(0; own fault) 

5.89 

2.51 

3.38 

4.31 

2. 

(T: unpatriotic) 

2.97 

1.05 

1.92 

1.75 

3. 

(I, A: too many employees) 

4.89 

1.30 

3.59 

2.95 

4. 

(0: different and strange) 

4.17 

1.19 

2.98 

2.23 

5. 

(T: unscrupulous) 

4.47 

1.16 

3.31 

2.45 

6. 

(A: Communists) 

3.39 

1.05 

2.34 

2.08 

7- 

(1,0: typical atmosphere) 

5.28 

1.32 

3.96 

3.23 

8. 

(T: first loyalty) 

5.05 

1.81 

3.24 

3.10 

9. 

(A: Gentiles ruthless) 

3.22 

1.00 

2.22 

1.84 

10. 

(0: marry a Jew) 

6.58 

2.30 

4.28 

4.22 

11. 

(T: parasitic) 

4.36 

1.27 

3.09 

2.19 

12. 

(A: avoid Jews) 

3.89 

1.13 

2.76 

2.09 

13. 

(S,0: overaggression) 

4.97 

1. 73 

3.24 

3.44 

14. 

(T: revolutionary) 

4.28 

1.35 

2.93 

2.69 

15. 

(A: Hollywood) 

3.94 

1.13 

2.81 

2.47 

16. 

(0: dirty) 

3.78 

1.24 

2.54 

2.30 

17. 

(S: clannish) 

5.78 

2.32 

3.46 

4.57 

18. 

(A: hotels) 

2.22 

1.05 

1.17 

1.46 

19- 

(I: crucifixion) 

2.69 

1.08 

1.61 

1.66 

20. 

(S: millionnaires) 

3.97 

1.32 

2.65 

2.44 

21. 

(A: Jewish leaders) 

4.64 

1.62 

3.02 

3.07 

22. 

(N: racial defects) 

3.86 

1.08 

2.78 

2.40 

23. 

(S: Jews keep apart) 

4.03 

1.94 

2.09 

3.21 

24. 

(A: form own nation) 

4.78 

1.70 

3.08 

3.23 

25. 

(I; Rosenwald) 

2.89 

1.16 

1.73 

1.74 

26. 

(N: contributed least) 

2.89 

1.19 

1.70 

1.97 


Mean: 

4.19 

1.42 

2.77 

2.66 


Means for total scale; 

4.27 

1.42 

2.85 

2.70 


Number: Total group = 144; H.Q. = 36; L.Q. - 37. 

Range of total scores; Total group: 52-286; H. Q. : 183-286; L.Q. : 52-89- 





8o 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


with few scores of 6 or 7 (+2 and +3 responses). And group means of over 

5.0, conversely, indicate relatively uniform agreement. 

The Discriminatory Power, on the other hand, is a measure of the variabil- 
ity of the high and low scorers around the group mean, and of their average 
difference in response. How large must a D. P. be in order to indicate almost 
no overlap between highs and lows? This depends on the form of the dis- 
tribution and the size of the group mean. An item with a group mean of 2 .0, 
a low quartile mean of 1.0, a high quartile mean of 3.0, and a D. P. of 2.0, is 
undoubtedly very discriminating; the low scorers responded unanimously 
with — 3, and the high scorers probably varied but little around the — 1 re- 
sponse. In general, the more extreme the group mean (especially below 3.0 
or above 5.0) the lower the D. P. can be and still adequately separate the low 
from the high scorers. From a broader point of view, however, the best items 
should have means nearer to 4.0; when the item mean is above 5.0 or below 

3.0, the item should be reworded so that fewer people or more people, re- 
spectively, will agree. 2 

For items with group means in the approximate range 3.0 to 5.0, Dis- 
criminatory Powers may be evaluated according to the following general 
standards: a D. P. of over 4.0 is very high and indicates almost uniform agree- 
ment by the high scorers, disagreement by the low scorers, with almost no 
overlap. D. P.’s of 3. 0-4.0 are very satisfactory and indicate a clear-cut dif- 
ference between high and low scorers. D. P.’s of 2. 0-3.0, while statistically 
significant, indicate greater variability in the responses of low and high 
scorers and a fair amount of overlap. A D. P. between 1.0 and 2.0 involves 
considerable agreement by the low scorers and disagreement by the high 
scorers, but it still indicates a statistically significant difference between the 
low mean and the high mean. 3 As the D. P. decreases below 1.0, the possi- 
bility of significance decreases rapidly. 

With these considerations in mind we can examine the data in Table 9. 
In general the Discriminatory Powers are quite satisfactory, averaging 2.85 
for the entire group. 4 For the 52 items, 5 D. P.’s are over 4.0, 21 are between 

2 A minimum item mean of 2.5 ought probably to be set for this group, since various 
studies have shown college students to be less prejudiced than the general population. For 
other groups studied in the present research, many item means were as much as a point 
higher. 

3 While standard deviations have not been obtained for all items, it can be shown that 
(with group N = 100 to 150) the standard error of the difference between the means for 
low and high scorers is almost never above .50, seldom below .25. In terms of the critical 
ratio, then, a D.P. of over 1.0 is statistically significant, that is, the means are different 
though the distributions are partially overlapping. 

4 While correlations between items or between each item and the total scale have not 
been computed for this group, later data on similar scales suggest that the average inter- 
item correlation is about .4, while between each item and the sum of the remaining items 
the average correlation is about .6. (See Chapter IV.) 



THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 8 1 

3.0 and 3.9, and 15 are between 2.0 and 2.9. Only 11 D. P.’s are between 1.0 
and 1.9, the lowest being 1.2. 

All of the D. P.’s are therefore above a minimum standard of acceptability. 
The 26 items with D. P.’s of over 3.0 are statistically very satisfactory. Why 
were the other items less adequate? The answer is indicated by the group 
means on these items. Of the n items with D. P.’s of less than 2.0, 10 have 
means below 2.1. Conversely, almost all of the items with means of over 
3.0 have D. P.’s of over 3.0. The mean for the low quartile is very low (below 
2.0) on almost every item. The mean of the high quartile, on the other hand, 
varies greatly from item to item. The items with low D. P.’s were, in almost 
every case, statements with which the high quartile tended predominantly 
to disagree. This result seems to be due partly to a lack of pseud odemocratic 
coloring in these items, partly to their obvious illogicality or lack of truth, 
and partly to a lack of extreme anti-Semites among these subjects. Thus, 
the mean of the high quartile on all 52 items averages 4.3 and varies from 2.2 
to 6.6. For the 10 items with the highest D. P.’s, however, the high quartile 
means average well over 5.0. 

The dependability of the item means and D. P.’s is indicated by a com- 
parison of the present group with the group of college students previously 
tested and reported on. The latter group responded to the entire scale (and 
other questionnaire material) at one sitting; the reliability was .98 and the 
subscale intercorrelations were also slightly higher than in the present group. 
The group mean per item was 3.0 as compared with 2.7 for the present group, 
and the average D. P. was 3.4 as compared with 2.85 here. The main differ- 
ence between the two groups seems to lie in the greater number of high 
scorers in the first group tested. The over-all mean of the low quartile was 
almost identical for the two groups: 1.39 then, 1.42 now. But the high quartile 
averaged 4.80 then as compared to 4.27 now. In noncollege groups a larger 
number of high scorers, and larger D. P.’s, have been found (see pp. 76, 140). 
Despite the over-all scale differences between the two groups, however, the 
adequacy of the individual items was very similar. Thus, the rank-order cor- 
relation between the D. P.’s was .78, while the item means correlated .92. 
In short, the most discriminating items for one group were also the best for 
the other group, and similarly for the poor items. The general conclusions 
about item means and discriminabilities to be drawn from the present group, 
then, are generally true for the previous group as well. 

Table 9 (HI) reveals that the best items pertain to a variety of topics. 
Stereotypy in anti-Semitic imagery is shown in the tendency to overgen- 
eralize Jewish faults, and in the fact that Item I— 1 3 (“J ews are alike”) is 
one of the most discriminating, with a D. P. of 3.83. The idea of Jews as a 
political threat (radicalism: Items II— 6, -14) was much less prevalent than 
the idea of Jews as an economic threat (wealth and power: Items I-5, -8, -22, 



82 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


II-5, -n) or as a moral threat (immorality: Items I-i, II— 1, -7, -i t). Ac- 
cusations on religious grounds were seldom supported, 5 as shown by the low 
group means and D. P.’s on Items I-20 and II— 1 9. A variety of discriminatory 
attitudes (exclusion, restriction, suppression: most items in the “Attitude” 
subscale) found considerable support and were very discriminating. 

The importance of careful formulation of items is shown by a comparison 
of good with poor items. The most discriminating items are usually the most 
pseudodemocratic ones according to criteria discussed above (Section B, 1). 
Consider, for example, the two items dealing with intermarriage. Item II-10 
(“I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew”) has a group mean of 4.2 
and a D. P. of 4.3, with a high quartile mean of 6.6 (almost all +2 and +3 
responses). On the other hand, Item I-15 (“It is wrong for Jews and Gentiles 
to intermarry”) has a group mean of only 2.6, a D. P. of 3.0, and a high 
quartile mean of 4.2. The higher mean and discriminability of the former 
item are probably due to its greater indirectness and distance from crude anti- 
Semitism. By what criterion is this item anti-Semitic? The criterion is the 
fact that it correlates well with the total scale, that is, it differentiates very 
well between subjects who score high and subjects who score low on the 
total scale. (The fact that the correlation is not perfect indicates that re- 
sponse to any single item is not a clear-cut sign of anti-Semitism nor of its 
opposite; the criterion must be the total scale score). 

Similar reasoning applies to items dealing with housing restrictions. The 
following items had very low group means (1.5 to 2.5): Item II- 18 (con- 
sistent exclusion from hotels), I-3 (exclusion from neighborhoods), I-21 
(occasional exclusion from apartment houses). Item II— 7 (Jews give a neigh- 
borhood a “typical Jewish atmosphere”), which is more indirect and pseudo- 
democratic, had a higher mean (3.2) and D. P. (4.0). It would appear that 
many individuals who are not now willing actively to support anti-Semitic 
programs have nevertheless a negative imagery and an underlying hostility 
that constitute a definite potentiality for such action. Even the more open 
and crude items on housing had significant D. P.’s, and the high quartile 
means of 4.3 and over (except on II— 1 8), seem to indicate only weak re- 
sistance to these ideas. 

The same considerations hold for the items dealing with occupations. 
Items which urge explicit policies of suppression and restriction of Jews 
( 1 - 6 , -9, II— 9, -15) tend to have low means. But items which emphasize gen- 

5 It is frequently held that Sunday School training is a major cause of anti-Semitism, 
which is then regarded as a form of “religious prejudice.” In this group, at least, rejection 
on religious grounds was infrequent. From the generality and irrationality of anti-Semitic 
ideology, it is clear that many diverse accusations are almost always involved, and that 
there are many sources for the underlying hostility which makes a given individual recep- 
tive to anti-Semitism. For a discussion of the role of religion in prejudice see Chapters VI 
and XVIII. 



THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 


8 3 

eralized Jewish faults and which introduce subtly discriminatory practices 
tend to have higher means; thus, Jewish businessmen are regarded as unfair 
and conniving (Item I-5), and they have too much financial power ( 1 - 8 ). 
While active suppression is not so desirable (low mean on I-9), it is unwise 
for an employer to hire many Jews (higher mean on I-24, II— 3) . The simplest 
solution— one that eliminates the need for suppression— would be for Jews 
to form their own nation (II-24). 

The pessimism of the high scorers regarding the solution to this problem 
is brought out by a number of items. On the one hand, they take the view 
that anti-Semitism has been entirely or primarily brought by the Jews on 
themselves and that any solution of the problem is a matter of Jewish re- 
sponsibility (Items II— 1, II— 2 1 ). Non-Jews are simply the victims of Jewish 
faults; if Jews would improve, become as good as “other people,” anti- 
Semitism would be eliminated. On the other hand, the Jews seem to be in- 
corrigible, and any apparent change only masks the Jewishness beneath 
(Items I-7, -13, II— 4, -8, -22). The contradiction is therefore complete: 
anti-Semitism is due to Jewish faults, but the Jews are unable to improve; 
the Jews should make sincere efforts to change, but their “basic Jewishness” 
is unchangeable. For the antidemocratic anti-Semite the only answer is open 
and direct suppression; for the pseudodemocrat it is subtle exclusion and 
“resigned tolerance” toward a bad state of affairs. The pseudodemocrats 
seem to betray a sense of threat and some antidemocratic potential by their 
doubts that democratic methods can solve the problem (Item I-12). 

D. THE SHORT FORM OF THE A-S SCALE 

It was a regular policy of the present research to contract the proven 
techniques in order to introduce new ones measuring additional trends of 
theoretical importance. In line with this policy, and in view of the high reli- 
ability and internal consistency of the original 52-item A-S scale, a short 
form of ten items was used in the first revision of the questionnaire. 

The short form is presented in Table io(III). The ten items were selected 
from the original fifty-two on the basis of both statistical and theoretical con- 
siderations. Since statistical adequacy (Discriminatory Power) was a neces- 
sary— but not sufficient— condition for inclusion, the new items were selected 
from the fifteen or twenty which had been most discriminating on the two 
administrations of the long form. Among these, selection was determined by 
the following qualitative considerations. Each item should be as rich in mean- 
ing as possible. There should be a minimum of duplication of meaning or con- 
tent among items. They should cover most of the subscales and most of the 
areas of accusation and discrimination. These desiderata have not been realized 
entirely; there were other items that seemed to merit inclusion, and for certain 



8 4 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE 10 (III) 

The Ten-Item A-S Scale (Form 78) 

Old No. Ne<wNo. a 

I- 24 11. Anyone who employs many people should be careful not 

to hire a large percentage of Jews. 

I- 5 16. One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick to- 

gether and connive, so that a Gentile doesn’t have a fair 
chance in competition. 

II-17 21. The Jewish districts in most cities are results of the clannish- 

ness and stick-togetherness of Jews. 

II- 1 26. Persecution of the Jews would be largely eliminated if the 

Jews would make really sincere efforts to rid themselves of 
their harmful and offensive faults. 

II-21 33. Jewish leaders should encourage Jews to be more incon- 

spicuous, to keep out of professions and activities already 
overcrowded with Jews and to keep out of the public notice. 

II- 10 40. I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew. 

II- 7 49. The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is 

that they gradually give it a typical Jewish atmosphere. 

I-7 62. No matter how Americanized a Jew may seem to be, there 

is always something different and strange, something basically 
Jewish underneath. 

I- 1 3 69. There may be a few exceptions, but, in general, Jews are 

pretty much alike. 

I-11 72. There are too many Jews in the various federal agencies 

and bureaus in Washington, and they have too much control 
over our national policies. 

“ “New number” refers to the numbering of the items in Form 78. 

“Old number” refers to numbering in the long form discussed previously. Slight revi- 
sions will be noted in the wording of several items. 

purposes they would probably be superior. The high internal consistency of 
the long form indicates that several statistically adequate short forms might 
be constructed. Nevertheless, the present form was expected to provide an 
adequate tool for most purposes of measurement. The slight revisions in the 
wording of some items were intended to make them simpler and clearer in 
meaning. The manner of presentation of this form was different from that 
previously used. Whereas previously each scale had been presented “all of 
a piece,” on a page or pages of its own, in this and all successive forms of the 
questionnaire the various scales were presented interspersed with each other, 
so that no single scale was particularly prominent or focal, and adjacent 
items dealt with widely varying topics. 6 

The new questionnaire, identified as Form 78 (on the basis of its having 

s The other scales in this form, to be discussed in the chapters that follow, deal with 
general prejudice (Negroes, other minorities, patriotism), with politico-economic liberal- 
ism and conservatism, and with potentially antidemocratic personality trends. There were 
78 items in all. This form of the questionnaire, like all the other forms, contained in addi- 
tion other questions dealing with group memberships, personality, and so on. 



THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 85 

78 scale items), was administered in the spring of 1945 to the following 
groups. Two of the groups comprise undergraduate students at the Univer- 
sity of California: the full membership, save for absentees, of the introduc- 
tory Public Speaking class. Here, as in all groups, men and women were 
separated in the statistical treatment and analysis was limited to native-born, 
white, non-Jewish Americans. The first two groups, then, are the Public 
Speaking Women (N = 140) and the Public Speaking Men (N = 52). The 
third group comprised forty women, the entire feminine membership of an 
Extension Division class in Psychology at the University of California. 
Most subjects of this group were in their thirties and late twenties, and hence 
were somewhat older on the average than those of our college sample. The 
fourth group, Professional Women (N = 63), is actually a combination of 
three smaller groups: (a) Twenty-four public health nurses, the entire 
nursing staff of a nearby health department (the director of this department 
was generally liberal in his outlook and had tried to select younger nurses 
with more advanced ideas about public health); (b) public school teachers; 
and (c) social workers, whp were reached through the mails. In the latter 
two cases, only about 20 per cent of those appealed to sent in their question- 
naires, and this sampling technique was not tried again. 

The reliability data for the short A-S scale are presented in Table 1 1 (III) . 
Reliabilities of .8q-.94 are extremely satisfactory, especially for a 10-item 
scale, and they are similar to those obtained on the long form. 7 The means 
of 3.3 to 3.4 for University and Extension Class students are substantially the 
same as the mean of 3.55 on these ten items for the previous class taking the 
long form of the scale. However, the mean of 2.6 for the Professional Women 
is significantly lower than the others (above the 1 per cent level statistically) . 
This difference may be due partly to sampling errors; the teachers and social 
workers responded voluntarily by mail, and the tendency to cooperate in 
filling out a questionnaire dealing with prejudice and with personal feelings 
is probably correlated with lack of prejudice. 8 The slightly greater reliability 
(.94) of the scale for this group may reflect a greater ideological consistency 
in older age groups. 

The Discriminatory Power method of item analysis was again carried out, 
and the results are presented in Table 12 (III). The average D. P. of 3.68 is 
very satisfactory and indicates that on most items there were very few low- 
quartile members who agreed, few high-quartile members who disagreed. 

7 The fact that these reliabilities are similar to those obtained on the long form argues 
against the hypothesis that the high reliability of the latter was due to a “set” for all-nega- 
tive items. 

8 This hypothesis is supported by questionnaire and clinical material on personality 
trends (opposition to “prying” and to “being analyzed” in the prejudiced subjects). Also, 
fewer high-scoring than low-scoring subjects in the groups tested were willing to be 
interviewed. 



86 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE 11 (III? 

RELIABILITY OF THE A-S SCALE (FORM 78) 


Property 0 

Gr. A a 

Gr.B a 

Gr.C a 

Gr.D a 

Over- all 11 

Reliability 

.89 

. 93 

.90 

.94 

.92 

Mean (total) 

3.33 

3.36 

3.40 

2.57 

3.16 

Mean (odd half) 

2.98 

3.30 

3.20 

2.34 

2.96 

Mean (even half) 

3.66 

3.42 

3.63 

2.83 

3.38 

S.D. (total) 

1.43 

1.48 

1.36 

1.37 

1.41 

S.D. (odd. half) 

1.42 

1.51 

1.38 

1.27 

1.40 

S.D. (even half) 

1.62 

1.56 

1.48 

1.58 

1.56 

Range 

1. 0-7.0 

1. 1-6.3 

1. 2-6.1 

1.0-6. 2 

1. 0-7.0 


a The four groups on which these data are based are: Group A, U. C. Public 
Speaking Class Women (N = 140): Group B, 0. C. Public Speaking Class Men 
(N = 52): Group C, U. C. Adult Extension Class^Women (N - 40): Group D, 
Professional Women (nurses, teachers, social workers, N = 63). 

b In obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not 
weighted by N. 

c The values of the means, Standard Deviations, and ranges are given in 
terms of mean/person/item. If multiplied by 10 (the number of items), 
they are translated into values representing total scale score per r 
person. 


The best items deal with such varied topics as conniving businessmen, Jews 
being all alike, intermarriage, exclusion from neighborhoods. 

How much influence did the form of presentation of the items have on 
their individual means and D. P.’s? Does it matter whether the items are 
presented in a solid block, as in the first form, or randomly dispersed through 
a longer series of extremely varied items, as in Form 78? Evidence bearing 
on this question was obtained by comparing the results on these ten items for 
the two types of presentation. The mean for the Psychology Class women 
on these ten items (first form, excluding the remaining forty-two items) was 
3.55, as compared with 3.32 for the Public Speaking Class women, the most 
comparable group taking Form 78, and the average D. P.’s were 3.76 and 3.68 
respectively. The differences are not statistically significant. Furthermore, 
the rank-order correlations between the individual item means for these two 
groups was .62, while the D. P.’s correlated .90. These correlations seem even 
more significant when one considers that the wording of some items was 
changed, and that the two groups were not systematically equated. The 
results on the first form were also compared with the over-all averages for 
all four groups taking Form 78. The individual item means correlated .88, 


ITEM MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS 


THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 


87 



a The four groups on which these data are based, are: Group A, U.C. Public Speaking Class Women (N = 140); 
Group B, U.C. public Speaking Class Men (N = 52); Group C, U.C. Adult Extension Class Women (N a 40); 
Group D, Professional Women (nurses, teachers, social workers, (N = 63). 

bln obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not weighted by N. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


88 

and the D. P.’s correlated .80. It would therefore appear that the relative 
discriminability (D. P.) and level of acceptability (mean) of the items is 
due mainly to the nature of the items themselves rather than to their form 
of presentation in the questionnaire. 

Although no correlations were computed among the four groups taking 
Form 78, the great variability of the over-all means and D. P.’s indicates 
considerable consistency of item mean and D. P. from group to group. The 
best items for one group tend to be the best for other groups, and similarly 
for the worst items. This consistency in rank order of means and D. P.’s holds 
even for the Professional Women, despite the fact that the absolute values 
of the item means were considerably lower for this group than for the others. 

Further evidence on these issues is given by results obtained in September, 
1945, from a group of 153 students, preponderantly women, at George 
Washington University, Washington, D. C. 9 The ten A-S items were pre- 
sented in a solid block, on a sheet containing no other scales, the instructions 
duplicating those given for the long form of the scale. The obtained reliabil- 
ity was .91, a value almost identical with those for the other groups. The 
group mean per item was 4.52 and the average D. P. was 4.02. The mean is 
significantly different (above the 1 per cent level) from the University of 
California means, and suggests, as have other independent studies, that sig- 
nificant sectional differences in anti-Semitism exist (the Far West being, 
apparently, less prejudiced than the East). While the Washington students 
obtain consistently higher scores, the item means show a rank-order cor- 
relation of .84 between the Washington group and the average of the four 
California groups, indicating a marked similarity in the relative acceptability 
of the items. This group also gives evidence that extremely high scorers do 
exist, and that the restricted range of the groups taking Form 78 is due mainly 
to a lack of extremely anti-Semitic members. The individual scores in the 
Washington group covered the entire range of possible scores, 10-70, with 
a mean per item of 6.27 for the high quartile, 2.25 for the low quartile. 

The Discriminatory Powers for the Washington group correlated .54 
with the average D. P.’s for the four California groups. The smallness of 
this value, in contrast to that for the item means, is due primarily to a change 
in the rank of item 72, which asserts that “there are too many Jews in 
Washington agencies.” The D. P. for this item had a rank of 8 in the Cali- 
fornia groups, but a rank of 2 for the Washington group (the D. P. being 
4.5). While the rank of the mean on this item was identical in the two groups 
(9 in both cases), the difference between low and high scorers was rela- 
tively much greater in Washington than in California. Living in Washington 
should provide, one might expect, a reality basis on which to respond to this 

9 We wish to thank Dr. G. H. Smith, then teaching at George Washington University, 
for his cooperation. These results were not incorporated in the main body of data because 
this group was not given the remaining sections of the questionnaire. 



THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 89 

item and thus minimize the differences' between otherwise low and high 
scorers. This does not seem to be the case. It would seem, rather, that how 
an individual assimilates and interprets social reality is to a large extent deter- 
mined by his pre-existing ideology. Living in Washington appears to have 
mainly a polarizing rather than a homogenizing effect, especially on the “Jews 
in government” issue. 

From the above discussion the following conclusions may tentatively be 
drawn. 

a. The item means and D. P.’s are not appreciably changed by changes 
in the form of presentation (from 52 consecutive anti-Semitic items to 10 
consecutive anti-Semitic items to ten items randomly interspersed among a 
series totalling 78 in all). 

b. While over-all mean and average D. P. vary considerably from group 
to group, relative discriminability and level of acceptability of each item 
(rank D. P. and mean) tend to remain fairly constant, with the exception of 
certain sectional differences (as in Item 72, regarding Washington agencies). 
That is, certain items tend consistently to have relatively high D. P.’s, others 
to have low D. P.’s, and similarly for the item means. 

c. The item means and particularly the D. P.’s were statistically very 
satisfactory. For eight of the ten items the D. P.’s averaged 3.5 to 4.3 (these 
values would be even higher were the Washington group included), and 
even the lowest average D. P.’s of 2.4 and 2.9 are adequate. 

d. The most discriminating items deal with Jewish businessmen, stereo- 
typed imagery, marriage, exclusion from neighborhoods, and Jewish respon- 
sibility for anti-Semitism. It is interesting that items stating the most fre- 
quently heard accusations and the more openly antagonistic attitudes usually 
had lower means and D. P.’s. 

e. In view of its high reliability and internal consistency, the short form 
of the A-S scale can be used for most research purposes in place of the 
original, longer form. 


E. VALIDATION BY CASE STUDIES: THE RESPONSES OF 
MACK AND LARRY ON THE A-S SCALE 

One meaning of the concept of validity as applied to a psychological test 
is that the test, which involves only a small sample of the individual’s re- 
sponses, tells us something that is generally true of that individual as judged 
by an intensive study of him. The A-S scale may be said to have validity of 
this kind to the degree that the subjects, in their responses to the scale, reveal 
the same tendencies which come out in their interviews. It will be worth 
while, therefore, to compare the responses of Mack and Larry to the A-S 
scale with what they have to say about Jews when they are invited to speak 
spontaneously. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


9 0 

In Table 13 (III) are shown the scores of Mack and Larry, the group 
mean and the D. P. for each of the ten items in the short form of the A-S 

TABLE 13 (III) 


RESPONSES OF MACK AND LARRY ON THE A-S SCALE 



Item 

Mack 

Larry 

Group a 

Mean 

Group 8, 

D.P. 

11. 

(Hire Jews) 

3 

1 

2.74 

3.61 

16. 

(Businessmen) 

6 

1 

3.40 

4.34 

21. 

(Jewish districts) 

5 

1 

3.51 

2.87 

26. 

(Get rid of faults) 

6 

1 

3.48 

3.89 

33. 

(Jewish leaders) 

3 

1 

2.37 

2.37 

40. 

(Marry a Jew) 

7 

3 

3.96 

4.28 

49. 

(Nice neighborhood) 

5 

1 

2.94 

4.12 

62. 

(Basically Jewish) 

5 

1 

3.35 

3.50 

69. 

(All alike) 

3 

1 

3.14 

4.30 

72. 

(Federal agencies) 

3 

1 

2.69 

3.48 


Over-all mean 

4.6 

1.2 

3. 16 

3.68 

a The 

group means and D.P. ’s are based on 

all four 

groups taking 

Form 78. 


scale (Form 78). Mack’s mean score, 4.6, is definitely, but not extremely 
far, above the over-all group mean of 3.16. He was just barely inside the 
high quartile for the group of Public Speaking Men of which he was a mem- 
ber. This is in keeping with the moderation which characterized the whole 
ideological section of his interview, and it forms part of the basis for the 
statement, in Chapter II, that he is a relatively mild case. His anti-Semitism 
is fairly general, in that he agrees with six of the ten statements and scores 
above the group mean on all but one of them; but a study of the responses 
to individual items reveals a clear pattern, one that can be distinguished from 
other patterns of anti-Semitism. In disagreeing slightly, and thereby scoring 
close to the group mean, in the case of Items 11 (Hire Jews), 33 (Jewish 
leaders), and 72 (Federal agencies), he is saying that he would have no 
serious objection if Jews should participate more fully in American life, 
that this indeed is what they ought to do. The main trouble, as seen in the 
positive responses to Items 16 (Businessmen) and 21 (Jewish districts), is 
that they would rather stick together and accumulate wealth and power for 
their own group. Although persecution would be largely eliminated if they 
should rid themselves of their faults (Item 26), they cannot really become 
“Americanized” (Item 62) and would still have to be kept at some distance 
personally and socially (Items 40 and 49). 

This is almost exactly what Mack tells us in his interview. It is the main 




THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 9 1 

point that he tries to make. “They accent the clannish and the material. . . . 
If a Jew fails in business, he’s helped to get started again. . . . They would be 
liked and accepted if they would be willing to mix. . . . The Jews won’t 
intermingle. ... I certainly wouldn’t (marry a Jew). ... I would date that 
girl in Public Speaking, but she doesn’t emphasize her Jewishness. She was 
accepted by the whole class. I would marry her if she had thrown off her 
Jewishness, but I wouldn’t be able to associate with her class.” 

It is interesting that Item 40 (Marry a Jew) is the one about which Mack 
feels most strongly and on which he deviates most markedly from the group 
mean. It would appear that he feels safe in saying, in the interview, that he 
would marry the Jewish girl “if she had thrown off her Jewishness,” because 
he does not really believe that she ever can do this; there would always be 
“something basically Jewish underneath” (Item 62). 

The item on which Mack obtains a score that is slightly below the group 
mean is 69 (All alike). Here there is a real discrepancy between scale and 
interview. The analysis of the interview seemed to show that stereotypy was 
an outstanding characteristic of this subject’s thinking, and yet when it 
comes to the item which pertains most directly to this characteristic, he fails 
to agree. This is not because the item is a poor one, for its D. P. was next to 
the highest obtained with this short form of the A-S scale; nor do there appear 
to be any special features of Mack’s stereotypy that would render Item 69 
inapplicable. Perhaps it is too much to expect that scale and interview will 
agree in every particular; these instruments are not that precise, or perhaps 
most subjects are not that consistent. 

It may be noted that Mack, in the interview, where he is allowed free 
scope, brings into his discussion of the Jews certain ideas, e.g., Jewish “weak- 
ness,” that are not touched upon in any of the ten statements which comprise 
the A-S scale. This outcome would have been considerably less likely, it 
seems, if he had responded to the 52 items of the original A-S scale. It is 
claimed for the short form of the scale that for most research purposes it 
can be substituted for the long form. In Mack’s case there appears to be no 
reason for dissatisfaction with the measure of the degree of his anti-Semitism 
which the short form yields; concerning the content of his anti-Semitic 
ideology it is noteworthy that the pattern which appears in his responses to 
the scale corresponds to what is central and seemingly most important in 
his spontaneous discussion. That the ten-item scale should at the same time 
reveal the more incidental and individualistic features of a subject’s ideology 
concerning Jews would be too much to ask. 

Larry’s responses to the A-S scale are true to form. He obtains the lowest 
possible score on every item except 40 (Marry a Jew), and even here he 
disagrees slightly. When it was stated in Chapter II that Larry was not an 
extreme example of low-scoring men, the reference was to what was known 
of him from all the diagnostic devices employed in the research. He made it 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


9 2 

clear enough in his interview that he was strongly opposed to prejudice 
against minority groups, and had he not come out with an extremely low 
score on the A-S scale we would have had cause for serious doubt of its 
validity. That he did not obtain the lowest possible score on Item 40 is evi- 
dence that he did not respond to the A-S items in an automatic way. It seems 
that at this point his impulse toward complete social interaction with Jews 
collided with his conventionalism, a trait which we have seen to be well 
developed in him, and he could not in honesty go beyond slight disagree- 
ment with the item. 

In general, the responses of these two subjects on the A-S scale are con- 
sistent with what they say about Jews in their interviews. This consistency 
appears not only in the degree of anti-Semitism expressed but in the content 
of the subjects’ thinking about Jews. To the extent that these results may be 
generalized, the A-S scale is a valid index of ideology concerning Jews. 


F. DISCUSSION: THE STRUCTURE OF ANTI-SEMITIC 

IDEOLOGY 

Perhaps the first conclusion to be drawn from the results presented above 
is that anti-Semitism is best conceived psychologically not as a specific aver- 
sion but as an ideology, a general way of thinking about Jews and Jewish- 
Gentile interaction. This is demonstrated by the high reliability of a scale 
dealing with so varied a set of ideas, by the reliabilities and intercorrelations 
of the subscales, and by the high internal consistency of the scale as revealed 
by the item Discriminatory Powers. The statistical results indicate that a 
quantitative measure of total anti-Semitic ideology has been obtained. Any 
individual can be assigned, with a relatively small margin of error, a rank 
along a dimension ranging from strong support of anti-Semitic ideology at 
one (high) extreme, to strong opposition at the other (low) extreme. The 
meaning of middle scores on this dimension is ambiguous, since they may 
represent indifference, ignorance, or an ambivalent combination of partial 
support and partial rejection of anti-Semitism. It is noteworthy, however, 
that individuals making middle scores on one subscale tend to make middle 
scores on the other subscales as well. Despite item-by-item variability, indi- 
viduals tend to be highly consistent in their responses to the several subscales. 

The fact that an individual’s stand on one set of items is similar to his stand 
on all others does not necessarily imply that all anti-Semitic ideas are of 
equal psychological importance to each individual. The spontaneous dis- 
cussions of anti-Semites, whether in an interview or in everyday social life, 
suggest that for each individual there are certain “nuclear ideas”— imagery 
of Jews as conniving, or sexual, or radical, and the like, and corresponding 
primary attitudes— which have primary emotional significance. However, 



THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 93 

these central ideas apparently make the individual receptive to a great variety 
of other ideas. That is, once the central or nuclear ideas are formed, they 
tend to “pull in” numerous other opinions and attitudes and thus to form a 
broad ideological system. This system provides a rationale for any specific 
idea within it and a basis for meeting and assimilating new social conditions. 

This conception of anti-Semitism aids in the understanding of the present 
results. It also offers an explanation of why an anti-Semitic rumor that is 
entirely new in its specific details (for example, the wartime accusations 
that only Jews could get tires or draft exemptions or officer status) is easily 
believed by anti-Semites: because of a receptivity to negative imagery gen- 
erally and by means of an ideological system within which the new idea is 
easily assimilated. 

This conception of the inclusiveness of anti-Semitic ideology stands in 
sharp contrast to numerous theories which conceive of anti-Semitism in 
terms of certain specific accusations or motives. The notion of anti-Semitism 
as a form of “racial” prejudice, for example, seems to be based on the idea 
that the main accusations against Jews involve their “racially inherited” traits 
(faults). Another common view, that anti-Semitism is a form of “religious” 
prejudice, is based on the explicit or implicit assumption that religious dif- 
ferences, and thus accusations on religious grounds, are the central issues in 
anti-Semitism. A third “specifistic” view is that anti-Semitism is based pri- 
marily on distortions of facts which some individuals have mistakenly accepted 
as true; for example, that Jews are unusually rich, dishonest, radical, and so 
on. This last theory has led to numerous attempts to fight anti-Semitism by 
giving the “true facts”— attempts which are distinguished for their lack of 
success. What this theory has overlooked is the receptivity of many indi- 
viduals to any hostile imagery of Jews, and the emotional resistance of these 
individuals to a less hostile and less stereotyped way of thinking. Finally, 
anti-Semitism is sometimes explained in terms of financial motives and ac- 
cusations: many people, it is asserted, oppose the Jews on the simple grounds 
of economic competition and financial self-interest. This theory ignores the 
other accusations (of power seeking, immorality, and the like) which are 
made with equal or greater emotional intensity. It also fails to explain why 
anti-Semites so often violate their own material self-interest in maintaining 
their prejudices. None of these conceptions of anti-Semitism has adequately 
grasped its generality, its psychological complexity, and its function in the 
emotional life of the individual. Nor can they suggest why many individuals 
oppose anti-Semitism despite their having economic situations, religious 
backgrounds, sources of information, and so on, which are similar to those 
of anti-Semites. What is required, in our opinion, is a psychological approach 
which seeks to grasp both anti-Semitic ideology and ^ft'-anti-Semitic ideol- 
ogy in their full complexity and scope, and which then attempts to discover 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


94 

the various sources of each viewpoint in the psychological development and 
social background of the individuals holding it. 10 

Before discussing the major ideas comprising anti-Semitic ideology, a few 
words regarding the scale and the scale data are necessary. It is believed that 
most of the major facets of everyday American anti-Semitism have been 
represented in the scale, though no claim is made that it contains all the anti- 
Semitic ideas currently in vogue. The scale data provide an empirical basis 
for the following discussion in the sense: (a) that each of the ideas to be 
discussed is supported by most anti-Semites (subjects who fall within the 
highest 25 per cent of scorers on the scale), opposed by most ^/-anti- 
Semites, the differences being statistically significant; and (b) that each anti- 
Semite supports most of these ideas, while each low scorer opposes most of 
them. Thus, one can speak of a broad framework of anti-Semitic ideology 
which is held in its entirety by relatively few individuals but which is sup- 
ported in varying degrees by many more. 

What, then, are the major opinions, values, and attitudes comprising anti- 
Semitic ideology, how are they organized or systematized, and how is this 
system different from other, non-anti-Semitic points of view? 

One striking characteristic of the imagery in anti-Semitic ideology is its 
stereotypy , which takes several forms. There is, first, a tendency to over- 
generalize single traits, to subscribe to statements beginning “Jews are . . 
or “The Jews do not . . .” Second, there is a stereotyped negative image of 
the group as a whole, as if “to know one is to know all,” since they are all 
alike. Third, examination of the specific characteristics comprising the im- 
agery reveals a basic contradiction in that no single individual or group as 
a whole could have all these characteristics. 

Another aspect of stereotypy which is implied by the scale items and 
brought out more directly in the interviews may be termed “stereotypy of 
interpersonal relationships and experiences.” It involves an inability to expe- 
rience Jews as individuals. Rather, each Jew is seen and reacted to as a sort 
of sample specimen of the stereotyped, reified image of the group. This 
form of stereotypy is expressed very clearly in Mack’s discussion of Jews 
(see Chapter II); while no statistics are available, the other interviews as 
well as everyday conversations indicate that his approach is not uncommon. 

This limitation in the experience of individuals has certain implications 

10 It may again be emphasized that the present approach is a psychological one. The 
sociologist, at least during this stage in the development of social science, tends- to proceed 
along other, perhaps parallel, lines. Thus, a psychological approach in terms of purely 
religious or purely economic motives is inadequate. However, a sociological approach in 
terms of religious or politico-economic structures and their relation to anti-Semitism as 
a sociocultural trend is, in our opinion, both valid and of great significance. What must 
be opposed, as we see it, is the tendency mechanically to subsume psychology under soci- 
ology and to confuse basic economic or religious social forces with superficial economic 
or religious motives in the individual. Sociological forces are considered in Chapters XVI, 
XVII, XVIII, XIX. 



THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 95 

for the theory that contact with “good Jews” lessens anti-Semitism. The 
effectiveness of social contact would seem to depend in large part on the 
individual’s capacity for individuated experience . This capacity is certainly 
not hereditarily determined, but it may often be difficult to change in adults. 
When it is lacking, new social experiences are likely to lead, not to new 
learning and development, but merely to the mechanical reinforcement of 
established imagery. 

Further analysis of stereotypy and other characteristics of anti-Semitic 
thinking, as well as concrete examples from the interview material, are pre- 
sented in Chapter XVI. 

These considerations raise several questions which are dealt with in later 
sections of this research. Do anti-Semites express the same stereotypy of 
thought and experience in relation to other groups and issues, that is, are 
stereotypy and rigidity aspects of their general psychological functioning? 
Why is it so important for anti-Semites to reject Jews on any and all grounds? 
Are the contradictions and oversimplifications primarily surface signs of a 
deeper-lying anxiety and hostility? If so, what are the personality trends 
involved, and how are they different from those found in non-anti-Semites? 

Let us consider the deeper psychological meaning of the stereotyped nega- 
tive imagery of Jews. While the specific surface opinions cover a great 
variety of topics, there seem nevertheless to be certain unifying ideas or 
themes underlying the opinions and giving them coherence and structure. 
Perhaps most central is the idea that Jews are threatening. Certainly this idea 
is present, explicitly or implicitly, in almost all the scale items. It is expressed 
in the subscale “Offensive,” where Jews are described as a moral threat , that 
is, as violators of important standards and values. These values include: 
cleanliness, neatness, and conformity; also opposition to sensuality, extrava- 
gance, prying, social aggressiveness, exhibitionism. The imagery of Jews as 
value-violators makes them not only offensive but also very disturbing. The 
anxiety becomes almost explicit in item II— 4: “There is something different 
and strange about Jews ...” 

These values are, of course, not limited to anti-Semites. Indeed, many of 
them are among the currently prevailing conventional middle-class values— 
and most Americans are psychologically middle class. It may be that anti- 
Semites and non-anti-Semites differ regarding certain values such as sensual- 
ity or conformity. However, it is likely that many unprejudiced individuals 
have substantially the same values as the anti-Semites do. Why, then, do these 
values become the basis for anti-Semitic accusations in one group but not 
in the other? One hypothesis would be that the non-anti-Semites are more 
flexible in their support of these values, less disturbed by value-violators and 
less inclined to stereotypy and overgeneralization. 

Moreover, these values tend, as will be shown later, to be held very strongly 
by the high-scoring subjects, and they appear frequently in these individuals’ 



9 6 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

thinking about themselves, other people, and social issues generally. In view 
of the emotional support given these values, and the intensity with which 
supposed value- violators are rejected, it is reasonable to ask whether the 
surface opinions and attitudes are motivated by deeper emotional disposi- 
tions. It is possible, for example, that anti-Semites are unconsciously strug- 
gling to inhibit in themselves the same tendencies that they find so unbear- 
able in Jews. Jews may be a convenient object on which they can project 
their unconscious desires and fears. It is difficult otherwise to explain why 
anti-Semites feel so threatened by violations of their moral values, and why 
they develop exaggerated, stereotyped imagery of the “morally impure 
Jews as a threat to the “morally pure” Gentiles. It will be significant in this 
connection whether the categorical distinction between value-violators (ego- 
alien, morally threatening groups) and value-supporters _( ego-syntonic, 
morally pure groups) appears generally in the thinking of these individuals 
regarding the various other ideological areas to be considered in the follow- 
ing chapters. To the extent that this and other themes underly and unify 
the entire social thinking of anti-Semites, their specific opinions and attitudes 
must be regarded in part as expressions of deeper-lying personality needs, 
anxieties, and conflicts. 

The idea of Jews as a social threat is expressed directly in the subscale 
“Threatening,” where they are described as having harmful effects in various 
areas of social fife. This concern with supposed Jewish power is a recurrent 
theme in the sources from which our scale items were taken and in the later 
interviews of our subjects as well as in the A-S scale itself. In the case of the 
moral values mentioned above, it is implied that non-Jews are the opposite 
of Jews: clean, conforming, modest, and the like. It would seem that power, 
however, while threatening in Jews, is justified and even valued in non-Jews. 
For example, the attitudes of segregation and exclusion are based on the 
assumption that Gentiles should be more powerful than Jews in order to 
enforce these policies. Why does the concern with power recur so often 
and in so many forms? Wliy is the Jewish group, which is actually small and 
relatively weak, regarded as so threatening, while the really powerful and 
dominating groups in the status quo are supported rather than feared? Is it 
actually the weakness of the Jews which is most disturbing to the anti-Semite? 
If the concern with power and the fear of weakness in the high scorers 
represent deeper personality trends, these trends should be revealed by the 
clinical techniques and they should be expressed in the other ideological areas. 

The issues of Jewish group loyalty and Jewish assimilation, viewed psy- 
chologically, reveal several central themes in anti-Semitic ideology. At first 
glance the criticisms of Jews and the demands on them seem both simple 
and reasonable. The Jews are, it is asserted, too clannish: they either keep 
apart in a kind of snobbish seclusion, or, if they do enter community affairs 

11 Cf . the “usurp er complex” described in Chapter XVII. 



THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 97 

they stick together and take advantage of other people. Therefore, the Jews 
must overcome their pride and clannishness, and their attempts to control 
other groups. When they have thoroughly assimilated, when they have lost 
their foreign ways and their clannish, conniving methods of gaining money 
and power at the expense of others, they can be liked and accepted. Until 
they change, they can hardly be surprised to find themselves excluded or 
limited in certain ways. The essential demand is that the Jews liquidate 
themselves, that they lose entirely their cultural identity and adhere instead 
to the prevailing cultural ways. Related to this narrowness is a punitive rather 
than an understanding approach to value-violators; the Jews deserve what- 
ever hardships they may sometimes undergo since they have brought it on 
themselves. In this vindictive approach there is no room for more complex 
explanation, no way of considering discrimination as primarily a cause 
rather than an effect of Jewish traits. There is an aversion to the idea that the 
basis for resolution of Je wish-Gentile conflict lies primarily in the total social 
organization— and therefore in the dominant groups in the society— and only 
secondarily in Jews themselves. 

But this demand for assimilation is not as simple as it seems at first glance. 
Jews who attempt to assimilate are apparently even more suspect than the 
others. Accusations of “prying,” “power-seeking,” and “imitation” are made, 
and seemingly generous acts by Jews are attributed to hidden selfish motives 
(subscale “Intrusive”). There is no logical basis for urging on the one hand 
that Jews become like everyone else, and on the other hand, that Jews be 
limited and excluded in the most important areas of social life. 

It need not be denied by non-anti-Semites that there are extremely clan- 
nish and power-seeking individuals in the Jewish as well as in the Gentile 
group. But why do the high scorers not oppose all individuals who seek 
power for themselves or their narrow groups and who would take advantage 
of others? It is a remarkable fact that most individuals who see clannishness, 
prying, and power-seeking as “Jewish traits” value the same things, under 
other names, in Gentiles. It is accepted as “human nature” that each indi- 
vidual will stand by his group, that “blood is thicker than water,” and that 
each group is therefore unified in its material interests. As long as there is 
any trace of a Jewish group, therefore, it is expected that each Jew will have 
primary loyalty to it. While this “clannishness” is deplored, the anti-Semites 
tend to hold in contempt anyone who lacks “loyalty and pride” in his group, 
and to put great value on these traits in their own groups. 

The imagery described above seems to characterize the thinking of most 
anti-Semites. Individual differences in the pattern of attitudes (programs of 
action) supported depend primarily on the strength of adherence to demo- 
cratic values. Openly antidemocratic individuals have a direct and clear-cut 
program: violent attack on the Jews leading to total liquidation or to perma- 
nent suppression and restriction. What to do is, however, a greater psycho- 



98 the authoritarian personality 

logical problem for those who have the same imagery, but who at the same 
time want to support democratic values of equality, nonviolence, and the like. 

The negative imagery of Jews, and the accompanying sense of threat, 
involve two main fears which form the basis for attitudes. There is, first, the 
fear of contamination: the fear that Jews may, if permitted intimate or inten- 
sive contact with Gentiles, have a corrupting or degenerating influence. 
Various forms of corruption may occur: moral, political, intellectual, 
sensual, and so on. Among the many ideas which have been attributed to 
“Jewish contamination” are free love, radicalism, atheism, moral relativism, 
modern trends in art and literature. Gentiles who support ideas such as these 
tend to be regarded as unwitting victims who have been psychologically 
contaminated in the same way that one may be organically infected by a 
disease. The notion that one Jew can “infect” many Gentiles is very useful 
in rationalizing many apparent contradictions. It permits one to attribute 
great influence to the Jews and thus to blame most social problems on them, 
despite their relatively very small number. It justifies one’s hostile feelings 
and discriminatory actions. Furthermore, an idea or social movement can be 
called “Jewish” even when most of its supporters are Gentile, since the latter 
are regarded as merely dupes or victims of Jewish contamination. An indi- 
vidual who accepts this reasoning feels compelled, no matter how great his 
value for tolerance, to protect the Gentile group by restricting the activities 
of the Jewish group. 

Viewed psychologically, this way of thinking raises several questions. 
Why is it necessary for anti-Semites to regard Jews as the source of all these 
ideas, that is, why do they regard these ideas as imposed on Gentile but 
originating in Jews? One hypothesis is that this represents an attempt on 
the part of the prejudiced individual to resolve an inner moral conflict by 
externalizing or projecting his own immoral tendencies; the inner conflict is 
replaced by a new conflict between groups: the sterotypically moral “we” 
and the stereotypically immoral “they.” That the inner conflict persists 
unconsciously in full force is shown by emphasis on external immorality and 
by the fear that this immorality will corrupt all who are exposed to it. The 
investigation of this and other hypotheses is reported in later chapters. 

In addition to the fear of contamination there is the fear of being over- 
whelmed. This anxiety is related to the imagery of Jews as prying and power- 
seeking. If Jews are given the opportunity of free participation in commu- 
nity affairs then, granted that they have these tendencies, they will form a 
small sectarian clique interested only in their own power and material inter- 
ests. To gain these aims they will shrewdly use even the most ruthless and 
dishonest methods. There is thus great danger that the Gentile group will 
be persecuted, victimized, exploited— in short, overwhelmed. 

It is difficult indeed, for a person with such hostile imagery and such 
anxiety, to have entirely democratic attitudes regarding Jewish-Gentile 



THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 


99 


interaction. Most pseudodemocratic attitudes represent attempts, conscious 
or unconscious, at compromise between the tendency to express the under- 
lying hostility directly (aggressive attack) and the tendency to conform to 
democratic values (tolerance, equality). The demand for total Jewish assim- 
ilation represents one such compromise, since total assimilation is, so to speak, 
a nonviolent way of liquidating the Jews. If there were no Jews then at least 
one source of anxiety and one object of hostility would be removed. Unfor- 
tunately, partial assimilation (the phase in which some Jews attempt to assim- 
ilate while others do not) seems to be more disturbing to anti-Semites than 
none at all. As long as the anti-Semites have some sense of the presence of a 
Jewish group— and thus an image of “the Jew” which can be applied stereo- 
typically to all individual Jews— those Jews who seem to be assimilating will 
be suspected of evil motives. It is an oft-repeated historical paradox that 
those who demand total assimilation do the most to prevent it, since their 
hostility and discrimination tend on the one hand to increase Jewish nation- 
alism and pride, and on the other hand to provide external barriers repelling 
those Jews who attempt assimilation into the dominant group. Conversely, 
Jewish assimilation has proceeded most rapidly in those communities which 
have accepted them without totalitarian demands for submission and all-out 
assimilation. 

A second way of non violently eliminating the Jews, and thus of solving 
the problem of interaction by simply not having any, is for them to “stay 
on their side of the fence and we stay on ours.” If they cannot be entirely 
absorbed— and, despite their demand for total assimilation, most anti-Semites 
seem to feel that the “basic Jewishness” is permanent— then they should be 
totally separate. The separation could be made complete if the Jews would 
“form a nation of their own and keep more to themselves” (Item II-24). 12 

Some individuals, including Jews, have supported the idea of separation 
(fraternal organizations, neighborhoods, and the like) on grounds of differ- 
ences in interests and culture. There can be no objection, from a democratic 
point of view, to an organization devoted primarily to Jewish culture and 
conducted in the Yiddish language, nor to one concerned mainly with Chris- 

12 The idea of a Jewish nation, particularly the important issue of Jewish settlement in 
Palestine, has been supported by various ideological camps. Much support in America has 
come from open or pseudodemocratic anti-Semites who wish that all Jews would settle 
there and who are afraid that, if the doors of Palestine are closed, America would have to 
open its doors to the refugees. 

Many non-anti-Semites have also supported the idea of a Jewish homeland, but not 
for reasons of separation and exclusion. The main democratic reasoning, in general, is 
that there should be a geographical-political unit in which Jewish culture can be the 
primary one, that this nation should be a part of the family of nations, and that all indi- 
viduals should be free to settle in whatever nation they choose, without the demand for 
total assimilation or the threat of exclusion. Since the Jewish group contains the same 
diversity of ideologies and personalities as any other major grouping, it is not surprising 
that there is much disagreement on this issue among Jews. In the present discussion, how- 
ever, the main concern is with non-Jews. 



IOO THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

tian religion or any other cultural form. But consistency with democratic 
values does require that, once the primary aims and functions of the organi- 
zation are laid down, membership be open to any individual who accepts 
its principles and meets its requirements. It is undemocratic to exclude any 
group as a whole, that is, to be unwilling to consider any applicant on the 
basis of his individual merits and faults. The exclusionism of some Jewish 
groups, while understandable as a defensive “pride” reaction, is no more 
justified than the equivalent policy in other groups. The total exclusion of 
one group by another, whether on ethnic, religious, social class, skin color, 
or other grounds, is necessarily based on stereotypy, hostility and anxiety, 
conscious or not. It is sometimes said that “a Jew (or Negro or Catholic) 
would not be comfortable here.” This usually means that he would be ex- 
posed to some degree of prejudice, subtle or crude, and it is the others who 
would be uncomfortable. 

Discrimination takes a variety of other forms, all designed to limit Jewish- 
Gentile interaction by restricting the full participation of Jews in community 
and national affairs. All forms of discrimination (exclusion, segregation, sup- 
pression, and so forth) against all groups have the double function of restrict- 
ing intergroup contact and of maintaining the dominant social position of 
the group doing the discriminating. 

There are many economic, political, religious, and other institutional forces 
involved in the subordination of various American groups. These broader 
social forces were, however, beyond the scope of this research. We were 
concerned, as stated in Chapter I, with the problem of the consumption of 
ideology by the individual: granted that various ideologies are present in the 
social environment, why is it that some individuals consume (assimilate, 
accept) the more undemocratic forms while others consume the more demo- 
cratic forms? The general assumption made was that, granted the possibility 
of choice, an individual will be most receptive to that ideology which has 
most psychological meaning for him and the most significant function 
within his over-all adjustment. Accordingly, there was much concern with 
the psychological content of anti-Semitic ideology in an attempt to form 
hypotheses regarding the deeper psychological trends, if any, which underlie 
and motivate the surface opinions and attitudes. 

Numerous trends underlying anti-Semitic ideology are suggested by the 
present scale results: stereotypy; rigid adherence to middle-class values; the 
tendency to regard one’s own group as morally pure in contrast to the 
immoral outgroup; opposition to and exaggeration of prying and sensuality; 
extreme concern with dominance and power (fear of Jewish power and 
desire for Gentile power) ; fear of moral contamination; fear of being over- 
whelmed and victimized; the desire to erect social barriers in order to 
separate one group from another and to maintain the morality and the 
dominance of one’s own group. 



THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY IOI 

Can it be demonstrated that these personality trends are actually present 
in anti-Semitic individuals? In the chapters which follow, there are several 
lines of evidence bearing on this question: (a) If these trends are present, 
then they should also be found in various other ideological areas, (b) These 
trends should be expressed in nonideological forms as well, that is, in ways 
of thinking about people and life generally, (c) Intensive clinical study 
should reveal these and other trends directly, as well as their organization 
and function in the total personality, and their course of development. 



CHAPTER IV 


THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 

Daniel ]. Levinson 


A. INTRODUCTION 

Our attention turns now to the problem of prejudice, broadly conceived. 
The term “prejudice” is not entirely adequate, since it has numerous mean- 
ings and connotations which might obscure or distort the ideas guiding this 
research. The term “ethnocentrism” is preferable because its traditional 
meaning comes much closer to that used here. First introduced and used 
descriptively by Sumner (115) in 1906, the term had the general meaning of 
provincialism or cultural narrowness; it meant a tendency in the individual 
to be “ethnically centered,” to be rigid in his acceptance of the culturally 
“alike” and in his rejection of the “unlike.” 

The traditional conception of ethnocentrism, from which the present one 
is derived, differs in several important respects from the usual notion of 
prejudice. Prejudice is commonly regarded as a feeling of dislike against a 
specific group; ethnocentrism, on the other hand, refers to a relatively con- 
sistent frame of mind concerning “aliens” generally. Usually, in discussions 
of prejudice against groups there is specific reference to “race prejudice” or 
“prejudice against racial and religious minorities.” This terminology is used 
even by people who know that “race” is a socially harmful idea as ordinarily 
understood, and who know that many groups (zootsuiters, “Okies,” and so 
forth) are discriminated against on neither racial nor religious grounds. 
Ethnocentrism refers to group relations generally; it has to do not only with 
numerous groups toward which the individual has hostile opinions and atti- 
tudes but, equally important, with groups toward which he is positively 
disposed. 

A theory of ethnocentrism offers a starting point for the understanding 
of the psychological aspect of group relations— why individuals are inclined 
toward competition, or conflict, or harmonious interaction, and so on. It is 
concerned with such questions as: What kinds of general attitudes do indi- 
viduals have about their own and other groups? What underlying ideas or 
themes run through an individual’s thinking about groups and group rela- 


102 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 103 

tions? How do these ideas develop? How are they related to trends in the 
individual’s thinking about other social processes? What personality trends, 
if any, are they related to, and in what way? How are they related to mem- 
bership in class, church, political party, and so forth? 

The term “ethnocentrism” shifts the emphasis from “race” to “ethnic 
group.” The everyday use of the term “race” has been criticized from many 
sides and on many grounds. It was originally suggested as one type of broad 
classification of human beings on the basis of skin color. Other anthropo- 
metric measures such as head shape and blood type were also suggested. 
Each of these organic bases of classification divides human beings (also 
known as the human “race”) into groups which are mixed with respect to 
the other organic characteristics. Thus, the Negroes, a “race” according to 
the skin color criterion, are mixed with respect to head shape and blood type. 
But, apart from the arbitrariness of the organic basis of classification, the 
greatest dangers of the race concept lie in its hereditarian psychological 
implications and in its misapplication to cultures. Psychologically, the race 
theory implies, whether or not this is always made explicit, that people of a 
given race (e.g., skin color) are also very similar psychologically because 
they have a common hereditary family tree. This notion has been contro- 
verted in the past few decades by work in psychology on the problem of 
“heredity vs. environment” and by work in cultural anthropology on the 
tremendous psychological variations within any given culture. Furthermore, 
the term “race” is often applied to groups which are not races at all in the 
technical sense. Sometimes this term is applied to nations, e.g., “the German 
race” or even “the American race.” Sometimes it is misused in connection 
with American ethnic minorities, such as Italians or Greeks. There is no 
adequate term, other than “ethnic,” by which to describe cultures (that is, 
systems of social ways, institutions, traditions, language, and so forth) which 
are not nations, that is, which do not form politico-geographical entities. 
This confusion, which is more than merely terminological and which per- 
meates much thinking on social problems, has plagued the Jews particularly; 
they are a good example of an ethnic group which is neither a formal nation 
nor a race. From the point of view of sociology, cultural anthropology, and 
social psychology, the important concepts are not race and heredity but 
social organization (national, regional, subcultural, communal) and the 
interaction of social forms and individual personalities. To the extent that 
relative uniformities in psychological characteristics are found within any 
cultural grouping, these uniformities must be explained primarily in terms 
of social organization rather than “racial heredity.” The use and develop- 
ment of the concept of “ethnic group,” as part of a broad educational pro- 
gram dealing with individual development and social change, can do much 
to clarify everyday thinking about social processes and problems. 

The conception of ideology presented in earlier chapters has been utilized 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


IO4 

here. Ethnocentrism is conceived as an ideological system pertaining to 
groups and group relations. A distinction is made between ingroups (those 
groups with which the individual identifies himself) and outgroups (with 
which he does not have a sense of belonging and which are regarded as 
antithetical to the ingroups). Outgroups are the objects of negative opinions 
and hostile attitudes; ingroups are the objects of positive opinions and un- 
critically supportive attitudes; and it is considered that outgroups should 
be socially subordinate to ingroups. 

The basic questions for research were raised in Chapter II. They concern 
the inclusiveness of ideas regarding a given group, the generality of out- 
group rejection, the content of ideas about ingroups and outgroups, and the 
amount of stereotypy in thinking about groups generally. 

There were numerous indications that some generality of ingroup and 
outgroup ideology within the individual would be found (13,25,85,90). 
Sumner found such consistency in his anthropological studies. Fascistic 
social movements have shown consistent tendencies to oppose a variety of 
minority groups. Many historians, literary men, and political analysts have, 
in a nontechnical, nonquantitative way, had this conception of ideology 
(21, 69, 72, 92, 93, 95, 101). One meets consistent outgroup rejection in 
everyday parlor and street-comer discussions. 

A quantitative indication of consistency was found in a previous study of 
anti-Semitism (71). Increasing degrees of anti-Semitism were shown to be 
closely related to increasing opposition to labor unions and racial equality, 
and to increasing support of Father Coughlin. Members of college sororities 
—which tend to have a strong ingroup ideology— were significantly more 
anti-Semitic on the average than nonmembers. And subjects reporting some 
ideological friction with parents— indicating ability to criticize the family, 
a major ingroup— were significantly less anti-Semitic than those reporting no 
such friction. 

To obtain a more conclusive answer to the questions raised in Chapter II, 
it seemed that the best method— in terms of rigor and quantification— was an 
opinion-attitude scale for the measurement of ethnocentrism. The construc- 
tion of this scale was, therefore, the first step taken. It was constructed in 
such a way that an analysis of its statistical properties and internal relation- 
ships might help to answer the major questions concerning the structure of 
ethnocentric ideology. 

B. CONSTRUCTION OF THE ETHNOCENTRISM (E) SCALE 

The procedure followed in the construction of the E scale was the same as 
that for the anti-Semitism scale (Chapter III). Once again, and by the same 
reasoning, the Likert method of scaling was used. Again, all items were nega- 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 


I0 5 

tive, that is, hostile to the group in question, and finally, the same general 
rules of item formulation were followed. 

1 . MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS OR AREAS: THE SUBSCALES 

Subscales were used in order to insure broad coverage of the total field 
and to permit statistical analysis of certain relationships with ethnocentric 
ideology. Since one of the primary research questions concerned the gener- 
ality of ethno centrism, each subscale dealt with a different set of ingroup- 
outgroup relations. Within each subscale an attempt was made to cover a 
variety of common pseudodemocratic— and a few openly antidemocratic- 
opinions and attitudes. 

The E scale in its initial forms did not include items about Jews; rather, 
the initial anti-Semitism scale was included separately in the questionnaire 

TABLE 1 (IV) 

Ethnocentrism Scale 
Negro Sub sc ale ( N ) 

2. If there are enough Negroes who want to attend dances at a local dance hall 
featuring a colored band, a good way to arrange this would be to have one 
all-Negro night, and then the whites could dance in peace the rest of the 
time. 

5. The Negroes would solve many of their social problems by not being so ir- 
responsible, lazy, and ignorant. 

8. Negro musicians are sometimes as good as white musicians at swing music and 
jazz, but it is a mistake to have mixed Negro-white bands. 

11. It would be a mistake to have Negroes for foremen and leaders over whites. 
14. Negroes may have a part to play in white civilization, but it is best to keep 
them in their own districts and schools and to prevent too much intermixing 
with whites. 

16. Manual labor and menial jobs seem to fit the Negro mentality and ability 
better than more skilled or responsible work. 

19. In a community of 1,000 whites and 50 Negroes, a drunken Negro shoots and 
kills an officer who is trying to arrest him. The white population should im- 
mediately drive all the Negroes out of town. 

22. The people who raise all the talk about putting Negroes on the same level 
as whites and giving them the same privileges are mostly radical agitators 
trying to stir up conflicts. 

25. An occasional lynching in the South is a good thing because there is a large 
percentage of Negroes in many communities and they need a scare once in a 
while to prevent them from starting riots and disturbances. 

28. It would be best to limit Negroes to grammar and trade school education 
since more schooling just gives them ambition and desires which they are 
unable to fulfill in white competition. 

31. There is something inherently primitive and uncivilized in the Negro, as 
shown in his music and his extreme aggressiveness. 

34. Most Negroes would become officious, overbearing, and disagreeable if not 
kept in their place. 



106 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

so that correlations between the two scales might be obtained. The develop- 
ment of a more complete E scale, including items about Jews, will be reported 
later in this chapter. 

The initial E scale consists of thirty-four items arranged in three subscales 
dealing respectively with Negroes, various other minorities, and patriotism 
(extranational outgroups). These will now be discussed, 
a. Negroes. Since Negroes are a large and severely oppressed group 
and since imagery of “the Negro” has become so elaborated in American 
cultural mythology, they merited a subscale of their own. The twelve items 
presented in Table i(IV) constitute the Negro subscale. (The items are 
numbered as they appear in the total scale.) 

These items attempt to cover most of the current ideology regarding 
Negroes and Negro-white relations. Negroes are described as lazy and igno- 
rant (Item 5) and as not really wanting equality with whites (Item 22: it is 
“radical agitators” who stir them up). Do individuals with the opinion that 

TABLE 2 (IV) 

Ethnocentrism Scale 
Minority Subscale ( M ) 

1. The many political parties tend to confuse national issues, add to the ex- 
pense of elections, and raise unnecessary agitation. For this and other reasons, 
it would be best if all political parties except the two major ones were abol- 
ished. 

4. Certain religious sects whose beliefs do not permit them to salute the flag 
should be forced to conform to such a patriotic action, or else be abolished. 
6. Any group or social movement which contains many foreigners should be 
watched with suspicion and, whenever possible, be investigated by the FBI. 
9. Although women are necessary in the armed forces and in industry, they 
should be returned to their proper place in the home as soon as the war ends. 
15. One main difficulty with allowing the entire population to participate fully 
in government affairs (voting, jobs, etc.) is that such a large percentage is 
innately deficient and incapable. 

17. It is a mistake to allow any Japanese to leave internment camps and enter 
the army where they would be free to commit sabotage. 

21. The many faults, and the general inability to get along, of the Oklahomans 
(“Okies”) who have recently flooded California, prove that we ought to send 
them back where they came from as soon as conditions permit. 

24. A large-scale system of sterilization would be one good way of breeding out 
criminals and other undesirable elements in our society and so raise its gen- 
eral standards and living conditions. 

27. Filipinos are all right in their place, but they carry it too far when they 
dress lavishly, buy good cars, and go around with white girls. 

29. Zootsuiters demonstrate that inferior groups, when they are given too much 
freedom and money, just misuse their privileges and create disturbances. 

30. The most vicious, irresponsible, and racketeering unions are, in most cases, 
those having largely foreigners for leaders. 

32. We are spending too much money for the pampering of criminals and the 
insane, and for the education of inherently incapable people. 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 107 

Negroes are “naturally” lazy or unambitious also have the attitude that 
when Negroes do strive for higher status they should be “kept in their 
place” (Item 34) and prevented from having positions of leadership (Item 
11)? Is the attitude that Negroes should be segregated (Items 2, 8, 14) held 
by the same persons who regard Negroes as threatening and inferior and 
who favor more active subordination of Negroes? These are some of the 
questions underlying this subscale, and the statistical results should offer at 
least a partial answer to them. 

b. Minorities. The second subscale (see Table 2 (IV)) contains twelve 
items dealing with various American minority groups (other than Jews and 
Negroes) about which negative opinions and imagery often exist and toward 
which attitudes of subordination, restriction of social functioning, segrega- 
tion, and the like are often directed. Included are organized groups such as 
minority political parties and religious sects as well as social movements and 
labor unions “containing many foreigners”; also ethnic minorities such as 
Japanese-Americans, Oklahomans (in California), and Filipinos. 1 Zootsuiters, 
criminals, the insane, “inherently incapable people” and “undesirable ele- 
ments,” which constitute moral minorities or outgroups, are also objects of 
hostile opinions and attitudes. 

Although prejudice is usually thought of as directed against minorities— 
in the sense of small numbers, and as opposed to a vague “majority”— one 
may ask if prejudice is not sometimes directed against a group containing 
more than half of the population. The phenomena of “contempt for the 
masses” and the subordination of women were considered examples of ethno- 
centrism of this type; Items 9 and 1 5 were included to determine how closely 
such attitudes are correlated with the others. Can the attitude that “women’s 
place is in the home” be considered a prejudice? It would appear that it is, to 
the extent that people with this attitude have others which are more obviously 
ethnocentric. A more conclusive proof would require a detailed study of 
ideology regarding women, oriented within a general theory of ethnocentric 
vs. nonethnocentric approaches. 

c. Patriotism. This subscale (see Table 3 (IV)) contains ten items 
dealing with international relations and viewing America as an ingroup in 
relation to other nations as outgroups. The term “patriotism” as used here 
does not mean “love of country.” Rather, the present concept involves blind 
attachment to certain national cultural values, uncritical conformity with 
the prevailing group ways, and rejection of other nations as outgroups. It 
might better be termed pseudopatriotism and distinguished from genuine 
patriotism, in which love of country and attachment to national values is 
based on critical understanding. The genuine patriot, it would appear, can 
appreciate the values and ways of other nations, and can be permissive 

1 During the war at least, the status of the last-named groups was a focal issue in Cali- 
fornia-more so than in most other states. 



io8 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE 3 (IV) 

Ethnocentrism Scale 
Fatriotism Subscale (P) 

3. Patriotism and loyalty are the first and most important requirements of a 
good citizen. 

7. There will always be superior and inferior nations in the world and, in the 
interests of all concerned, it is best that the superior ones be in control of 
world affairs. 

10. Minor forms of military training, obedience, and discipline, such as drill, 
marching and simple commands, should be made a part of the elementary 
school educational program. 

12. The main threat to basic American institutions during this century has come 
from the infiltration of foreign ideas, doctrines, and agitators. 

13. Present treatment of conscientious objectors, draft evaders, and enemy aliens 
is too lenient and mollycoddling. If a person won’t fight for his country, 
he deserves a lot worse than just prison or a work camp. 

18. In view of the present national emergency, it is highly important to limit 
responsible government jobs to native, white, Christian Americans. 

20. European refugees may be in need, but it would be a big mistake to lower 
our immigration quotas and allow them to flood the country. 

23. It has become clear that the Germans and Japanese are racially war-minded 
and power-seeking, and the only guarantee of future peace is to wipe out 
most of them and to keep the rest under careful control. 

26. Mexico can never advance to the standards of living and civilization of the 
U. S., due mainly to the innate dirtiness, laziness, and general backwardness 
of Mexicans. 

33. There will always be wars because, for one thing, there will always be races 
who ruthlessly try to grab more than their share. 

toward much that he cannot personally accept for himself. He is free of 
rigid conformism, outgroup rejection, and imperialistic striving for power. 

Ingroup opinions and attitudes are expressed in Items 3, 7, and 10. They 
are intended to express a general value for obedience and discipline, the 
opinion that nations are arranged hierarchically from superior to inferior, 
and the attitude that the superior ones should be dominant— with the assump- 
tion that we are one of the superior nations. The rigidity of the value for 
obedience is shown by the punitive attitude toward those who disobey (Item 
13: Punishment of conscientious objectors and draft evaders). 

The glorification of the national ingroup is shown further in the tendency 
to regard other nations as inferior when they are distant (Item 26), and 
threatening when they come too close (Items 12, 20, and 23). We are there- 
fore morally justified in excluding refugees, in “wiping out” the Germans 
and Japanese, 3 in excluding foreigners and others from government jobs, 

2 This item (23), so relevant during the war, can of course no longer be used. (It should 
be pointed out that one could actively support the war without such a destructive attitude 
toward the enemy or such national smugness.) If these attitudes are correlated with rejec- 
tion of most other nations, then the people who made high (ethnocentric) scores on this 
scale may be the ones who now show similar attitudes toward our wartime allies and sup- 
port militaristic, imperialistic, “tough-minded policies guaranteeing American sovereignty 
and interests.” 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY IO9 

and in maintaining our dominant position as a nation. The cynicism about 
peace and the moralistic attribution of war to “ruthless, grabbing races” also 
indicate the sense of threat from outgroups and the moral righteousness of 
the ingroup. The fact that this theory of the cause of war is held by many 
college students who have been exposed to sociological explanations in terms 
of socioeconomic organization and conflicts raises the question: What are 
the inner barriers in some individuals which make them unreceptive to non- 
moralistic explanations? This problem, to be taken up in later chapters, 
concerns the personality dynamics underlying ethnocentric ideology. 

If people who make high scores on this subscale are also high on the others, 
then it would appear that although they hold America to be superior and 
inviolable, they actually reject the great majority of the people in this coun- 
try. Item 18 brings this out directly: it is only the native, white, Christian 
Americans who can be trusted. And various items from the “Minorities” 
subscale indicate that large sections of this population are also in the out- 
group category. 

2. THE TOTAL ETHNOCENTRISM (E) SCALE 

The total E scale is intended to measure the individual’s readiness to accept 
or oppose ethnocentric ideology as a whole. The scale consists of 34 items 3 
and comprises the three subscales N, M, and P. It is presented in Table 4 (IV), 
with instructions to subjects, just as it was administered. 

C. RESULTS: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SCALE 

The subjects were allowed the same six choices of response for each item 
(-}~3 to — 3, with no neutral response), and the responses were converted 
into scores in the same way ( — 3 = 1 point, — 2 = 2 points, etc.) as was the 
case with the A-S scale. All the items were regarded as pro-ethnocentric. For 
the 34 items, then, the total scores can range between 34 points (1 point on 
each item, indicating strong anti-ethnocentrism) and 238 points (7 points on 
each item, strong ethnocentrism). When the total score is divided by 34 we 
obtain the mean score per item; thus, a total score of 5 1 can also be stated as 
a mean per item of 1.5. 

This scale was administered as part of the questionnaire which also con- 
tained the initial (52 item) A-S scale. As reported in Chapter III, this ques- 
tionnaire was given in April, 1944, to a class in Introductory Psychology at 
the University of California. The data presented here are based on the ques- 
tionnaires of the 144 women subjects, including nineteen members of major 
minorities. 

3 Items 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 of the present scale were taken, in some cases with slight modifica- 
tions, from the “Unlabelled Fascist Attitudes” Scale of Edwards (22). Both Edwards’ 
study and the present one have profitted from previous studies by Gundlach (46), Katz 
and Cantril (17), and Stagner (112, 1 1 3 ) . Several of the “Negro” items have been taken 
from Murphy and Likert (84). 



I IO 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE 4 (IV) 

The Total Ethnocentrism Scale 
Public Opinion Questionnaire E 

The following statements refer to opinions regarding a number of social groups 
and issues, about which some people agree and others disagree. Please mark each 
statement in the left-hand margin according to your agreement or disagreement, 
as follows: 

+ i: slight support, agreement — i: slight opposition, disagreement 

+2: moderate support, “ — 2: moderate opposition, “ 

+3: strong support, “ --3: strong opposition, “ 

1. The many political parties tend to confuse national issues, add to the 

expense of elections, and raise unnecessary agitation. For this and other 
reasons, it would be best if all political parties except the two major 
ones were abolished. 

2. If there are enough Negroes who want to attend dances at a local 

dance hall featuring a colored band, a good way to arrange this would 
be to have one all-Negro night, and then the whites could dance In 
peace the rest of the time. 

3. Patriotism and loyalty are the first and most important requirements of a 

good citizen. 

4. Certain religious sects whose beliefs do not permit them to salute the 

flag should be forced to conform to such a patriotic action, or else 
be abolished. 

5- The Negroes would solve many of their social problems by not being 

so irresponsible, lazy, and ignorant. 

6. Any group or social movement which contains many foreigners should 

be watched with suspicion and, whenever possible, be investigated by 
the FBI. 

7. There will always be superior and inferior nations in the world and, 

in the interests of all concerned, it is best that the superior ones be in 
control of world affairs. 

8. Negro musicians are sometimes as good as white musicians at swing 

music and jazz, but it is a mistake to have mixed Negro-white bands. 
9. Although women are necessary now in the armed forces and in indus- 
try, they should be returned to their proper place in the home as soon 
as the war ends. 

10. Minor forms of military training, obedience, and discipline, such as 

drill, marching and simple commands, should be made a part of the 
elementary school educational program. 

11. It would be a mistake to have Negroes for foremen and leaders over 

whites. 

12. The main threat to basic American institutions during this century has 

come from the infiltration of foreign ideas, doctrines, and agitators. 

13. Present treatment of conscientious objectors, draft-evaders, and enemy 

aliens is too lenient and mollycoddling. If a person won’t fight for his 
country, he deserves a lot worse than just a prison or a work camp. 

14. Negroes may have a part to play in white civilization, but it is best 

to keep them in their own districts and schools and to prevent too 
much intermixing with whites. 

15. One main difficulty with allowing the entire population to participate 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 


I I I 


fully in government affairs (voting, jobs, etc.) is that such a large 
percentage is innately deficient and incapable. 

1 6. Manual labor and menial jobs seem to fit the Negro mentality and abil- 
ity better than more skilled or responsible work. 

17. It is a mistake to allow any Japanese to leave internment camps and 
enter the army where they would be free to commit sabotage. 

18. In view of the present national emergency, it is highly important to 
limit responsible government jobs to native, white, Christian Ameri- 
cans. 

19. In a community of 1,000 whites and 50 Negroes, a drunken Negro 
shoots and kills an officer who is trying to arrest him. The white pop- 
ulation should immediately drive all the Negroes out of town. 

20. European refugees may be in need, but it would be a big mistake to 
lower our immigration quotas and allow them to flood the country. 

21. The many faults, and the general inability to get along, of the Okla- 
homans (“Okies”), who have recently flooded California, prove that 
we ought to send them back where they came from as soon as condi- 
tions permit. 

22. The people who raise all the talk about putting Negroes on the same 
level as whites and giving them the same privileges are mostly radical 
agitators trying to stir up conflicts. 

23. It has become clear that the Germans and Japanese are racially war- 
minded and power-seeking, and the only guarantee of future peace is 
to wipe out most of them and to keep the rest under careful control. 

24. A large-scale system of sterilization would be one good way of breed- 
ing out criminals and other undesirable elements in our society and so 
raise its general standards and living conditions. 

.25. An occasional lynching in the South is a good thing because there 
is a large percentage of Negroes in many communities and they need a 
scare once in a while to prevent them from starting riots and disturb- 
ances. 

.2 6. Mexico can never advance to the standards of living and civilization 
of the U. S., due mainly to the innate dirtiness, laziness, and general 
backwardness of Mexicans. 

27. Filipinos are all right in their place, but they carry it too far when they 
dress lavishly, buy good cars, and go around with white girls. 

28. It would be best to limit Negroes to grammar and trade school educa- 
tion since more schooling just gives them ambitions and desires 
which they are unable to fulfill in white competition. 

29. Zootsuiters demonstrate that inferior groups, when they are given 
too much freedom and money, just misuse their privileges and create 
disturbances. 

30. The most vicious, irresponsible, and racketeering unions are, in most 
cases, those having largely foreigners for leaders. 

31. There is something inherently primitive and uncivilized in the Negro, 
as shown in his music and his extreme aggressiveness. 

32. We are spending too much money for the pampering of criminals and 
the insane, and for the education of inherently incapable people. 

33. There will always be wars because, for one thing, there will always be 
races who ruthlessly try to grab more than their share. 

34. Most Negroes would become officious, overbearing, and disagreeable 
if not kept in their place. 



I 12 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


1 . RELIABILITY 

Data indicating the reliability and related statistical properties of the E 
scale and its subscales are given in Table 5 (IV). 


TABLE 5 (IV) 

RELIABILITY OF THE ETHNOCENTRISM (E) SCALE AND ITS SUBSCALES 


Property 

Total 

E Scale 

Negroes 

Sub scales 
Minorities 

Patriotism 

Reliability 4 

.91 

.91 

.82 

.80 

Number of items 

34 

12 

12 

10 

Mean (total) b 

3. 17 

2.72 

3.32 

3.53 

Mean (odd half) 

3. 02 

2.65 

3.23 

3.88 

Mean (even half) 

3.32 

2. 78 

3.40 

3. 18 

S.D. (total) b 

L. 15 

1. 25 

1.21 

1. 26 

S.D. (odd half) 

1. 17 

1. 25 

1.37 

1. 26 

S.D. (even half) 

1.21 

1.42 

1. 28 

1.46 

Range b 

1. 2-5. 6 

1. 0-5. 6 

1. 0-6.0 

1.0-6. 1 


^he split-half reliability of each scale was obtained by correlating 
the sum of the scores on the odd items with the sum of the even items, 
and correcting this value by the Spearman -Brown formula. 
b The means, S. D.’s, and ranges are given in terms of mean score per 
item on the scale or subscale in question. If this value is multiplied 
by the number of items in the scale or subscale. It is converted into 
mean total score. 

The split-half rehab ility of the total E scale is .91, a value which meets 
accepted statistical standards. 4 The odd and even halves were roughly equiv- 
alent in the sense that they contained about equal numbers of items from the 
three subscales. The lower mean of the odd half seems due to the slight over- 
weighting with low-mean Negro items. The obtained range covered most of 
the possible range, with the exception of the extremely high end. The absence 
of very high scores (averages of over 6 points per item) is also reflected in 
the relatively low group mean of 3.17, as compared with the neutral point 
of 4.0 per item. The distribution of scores is very symmetrical— the mean 
divides the range in half, and the median is 3.2— but platykurtic, with very 
little clustering of scores around the mean. 

The high reliabilities of the subscales are noteworthy, especially in view of 
the small number of items in each. 

In terms of reliability, equivalence of halves, and form of distribution, 

4 On the chance that the 19 minority group members might be atypical in some way, a 
separate reliability was computed for the 125 remaining subjects. The obtained value was 
.91, identical with that for the total group. 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 113 

then, it seems safe to conclude that the E scale and its subscales provide ade- 
quate measuring instruments. To the extent that the scale is valid, it provides 
a measure of ethnocentrism, in most of its generality and complexity. It may 
be claimed that the higher an individual’s score, the greater his acceptance 
of ethnocentric propaganda and the greater his disposition to engage in 
ethnocentric accusatiops and programs of one form or another. 

2. INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG THE SUBSCALES 
The reliability data support the hypothesis that there is such a thing as 
general ethnocentric ideology and that people can be roughly ranked ac- 
cording to the strength of their acceptance or rejection of it. Support for 
this hypothesis is also given by the high intercorrelations among the sub- 
scales, as shown in Table 6 (IV). 


TABLE 6 (IV) 

CORRELATIONS OF THE E SUBSCALES WITH EACH OTHER 
AND WITH THE TOTAL E SCALE a 



Negroes 

Minorities 

Patriotism 

Total E 

Negroes 

--- 

.74 

.76 

.90 

Minorities 

.74 

— 

.83 

.91 

Patriotism 

.76 

.83 

--- 

.92 


a These are the raw correlation coefficients. If they were corrected for 
attenuation to give the maximal value theoretically obtainable (with 
perfectly reliable instruments), they would all be .9 or over. 


The subscale intercorrelations, which range from .74 to .83, are of con- 
siderable significance. The fact that they involve items dealing with so great 
a variety of groups and ideas suggests again that ethnocentrism is a general 
frame of mind, that an individual’s stand with regard to one group such as 
Negroes tends to be similar in direction and degree to his stand with regard 
to most issues of group relations. 

The inter correlations of .90 to .92 between each subscale and the total 
E scale make the same point; an individual’s score on any one subscale per- 
mits one to predict very closely his score on the entire E scale. Or, to put 
it in another way: While almost every subject shows some variability in his 
responses to the individual items (as will be shown below), almost every 
one demonstrates a general degree of pro- or anti-ethnocentrism which is 
relatively consistent from one group or type of group to another. And ethno- 
centric hostility toward outgroups is highly correlated with ethnocentric 
idealization of ingroups. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


"4 

3. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF 
THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS 

The functions of item analysis, and the procedures involved, have been 
discussed in the previous chapter. The data on the item analysis of the E scale 
are presented in Table 7 (IV). Each item is identified by a key word or 
phrase, and the letters N, M, and P refer to the subscales Negroes, Minori- 
ties, and Patriotism respectively. It will be recalled that the Discriminatory 
Power (D. P.) equals the mean for the high quartile minus the mean for the 
low quartile. The total group mean is, of course, based on all four quartiles. 

In general the D. P.’s in Table 7 (IV) are very satisfactory, 5 averaging 
2.97. For the 34 items, 5 D. P.’s are over 4.0, 13 are between 3.0 and 3.9, and 
10 are between 2.0 and 2.9; only 3 are between 1.0 and 1.9, and 3 less than 
1 .0. Furthermore, all 6 items with D. P.’s of less than 2.0 have group means 
of less than 3.0, so the D. P. is more significant than it appears. 6 

The three least discriminating items are 19, 25, and 28, all in subscale N. 
They are also the only three items with group means of less than 2.0. Their 
low means indicate almost unanimous disagreement by all subjects. This is 
to be expected, since the items are particularly violent and repressive: Ne- 
groes should be driven out of towm, lynched, kept ignorant and uneducated. 
But these data show the advantage of permitting three degrees of agreement 
and of disagreement, and they also reveal a subtle receptiveness in the 
high-scoring subjects to openly antidemocratic programs. Of the 36 low 
scorers only one responded with — 2 (on Item 28), all other responses on 
all three items being a firm — 3 (and thus a low mean of 1.00). The high 
quartile, on the other hand, had a mean of 1.8 on each of the three items; 
nearly half of them responded with — 2 or above. One might ask if this is an 
indication of potential response during a period in which fascism had become 
a real power. Not all those who score high on E, certainly, are receptive to 
violent antidemocracy; the task of determining the deeper psychological 
forces which make for potential receptiveness or opposition to fascism— 
the ultimate in ethnocentrism— is one which follows the first task of measur- 
ing ethnocentrism in its presently existing form. 

The item analysis indicates that the N, M, and P subscales contributed 
about equally to the total differentiation between the high and low quartiles 
on the total scale, the average D. P. being 3.0, 2.9, and 3.1 respectively. Apart 
from items 19, 25, and 28, discussed above, the Negro items were highly dis- 
criminating. Ethnocentrists and anti-ethnocentrists, as measured by the total 
scale, are clearly differentiated with respect to most of the ideas contained 

5 The D. P.’s would be even higher if the “range of talent” in this group included more 
extreme ethnocentrists. This is shown by results on subsequently tested groups. 

6 While correlations between items or between each item and the total scale have not 
been computed for this group, later data on similar scales suggest that the average correla- 
tion between single items is about .4, while between each item and the sum of the remain- 
ing items the average correlation is about .6. 



the study of ethnocentric ideology 

TABLE 7 (IV) 


ll 5 


MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS OP THE E-SCALE ITEMS 





Mean 


Mean for 

No. 


Item 

High 

Low 

D.P. 

Total 




Quart ile 

Quart ile 


Group 

1. 

(M: 

political parties) 

3.72 

2. 17 

1.55 

2. 85 

2. 

(n: 

dance) 

6. 17 

1.97 

4.20 

4.04 

3. 

(P: 

patriotism) 

6. 48 

3. 86 

2.62 

5.21 

4. 

(M: 

religious sects) 

5.08 

1.61 

3. 47 

3.26 

5. 

<N: 

lazy) 

3. 10 

1.53 

3. 19 

3. 19 

6. 

(M: 

foreign groups) 

4.50 

1. 69 

2.81 

3.02 

7. 

<P: 

superior nations) 

3. 67 

1. 25 

2.42 

2.54 

8. 

(N: 

bands) 

5.08 

1. 25 

3.83 

2. 77 

9. 

(M: 

women) 

5.86 

3. 75 

2. 11 

4. 76 

10. 

(P: 

military training) 

5.06 

2.47 

2. 59 

3.83 

11. 

(N: 

foremen) 

6.05 

1.69 

4. 36 

3.99 

12. 

(P: 

foreign ideas) 

4.86 

1. 22 

3.64 

3. 13 

13. 

(P: 

conscientious objectors) 

4.64 

1.44 

3. 20 

2.90 

14. 

(N: 

districts) 

6. 33 

1. 72 

4.61 

4. 08 

15. 

(M: 

voting) 

5.06 

2.33 

2. 73 

3.71 

16. 

(N: 

menial jobs) 

5. 22 

1. 58 

3.64 

3.17 

17. 

(M: 

Japs in array) 

5.86 

1.92 

3.94 

3.87 

18. 

(P: 

native white Americans) 

4. 75 

1. 08 

3.67 

2.80 

19. 

(N: 

drive out) 

1.86 

1.00 

.86 

1. 26 

20. 

(P: 

refugees) 

6.39 

3.50 

2.89 

5. 28 

21. 

(M: 

Okies) 

5.39 

1.81 

3. 58 

5.70 

22. 

(N: 

agitators) 

4.53 

1.08 

3.45 

2. 51 

23. 

(P: 

Germans and Japs) 

5. 28 

1. 50 

3.78 

3. 07 

24. 

(M: 

sterilize) 

3. 11 

2.03 

1.08 

2.71 

25. 

(N: 

lynch) 

1.81 

1. 00 

.81 

1.32 

26. 

(P: 

Mexico) 

3. 69 

1.06 

2.63 

2. 15 

27. 

(M: 

Filipinos) 

5. 64 

1. 22 

4.42 

3.68 

28. 

(N: 

grammar schools) 

1.86 

1.03 

.83 

1.30 

29. 

(M: 

zootsuiters) 

5. 58 

1. 39 

4. 19 

3. 62 

30. 

(M: 

foreigners, unions) 

4.08 

1. 17 

2.91 

2.42 

31. 

<N: 

primitive) 

3.72 

1. 17 

2.56 

2.42 

32. 

(M: 

pamper criminals) 

3. 22 

1.53 

1.69 

2. 20 

33. 

(P: 

always war) 

5. 89 

2. 64 

3.25 

4.37 

34. 

(n: 

overbearing) 

4. 75 

1.06 

3. 69 

2.67 


Means: Total scale 

4. 70 

1.73 

2.97 

3, 17 



Subscale N 

4. 34 

1.34 

3.00 

2. 72 



Sub scale M 

4.76 

1.89 

2.87 

3. 32 



Subscale P 

5. 07 

2.00 

3.07 

3.53 


Number: Total group = 144 
H. Q. =36 

L. Q. =36 


Range of scores: 


Total group = l. 2-5. 6 
H. Q. = 4. 2-5. 6 

L. Q. =1. 2-2. 2 



J I( 5 the authoritarian personality 

in the Negro items. The mean for the low quartile is invariably below 2.0, 
indicating that the low scorers seldom agree with these items and usually 
disagree strongly. The high scorers are not so outspoken in their stand; 
their most frequent responses are in the range of — 1 to +2; but the fre- 
quency of the agreements overshadows the slight disagreements. 

The means are somewhat higher on the Minorities subscale but once 
again, despite the great variety of groups represented, the highs and lows 
are clearly differentiated on most items. Three Minorities items (1, 24, 32) 
had group means below 3.0 and Discriminatory Powers between 1.1 and 
1 7 These D P.’s indicate statistically significant trends but do not establish 
clear-cut differentiations. The high scorers apparently did not fall for the 
suggestions in these items that minority political parties be suppressed 
perhaps because these parties were not described as immoral or threatening 
(suppression of religious sects was accepted in Item 4 )-that undesirables be 
sterilized, and that less money be spent on criminals, the insane and the in- 
herently incapable.” The idea that “woman’s place is in the home is appar- 
ently accepted by most women (Item 9; mean — 4.76). Whi e t e ow 
quartile is almost equally divided on this issue, the high scorers are definitely 
in favor of it; the D. P. of 2.1 is clearly significant. One wonders whether 
this item would be better correlated with ethnocentnsm in men. The most 
discriminating items in this subscale deal with a variety of groups: religious 
sects (Item 4), foreign ideas (Item 12), Japanese (Item 17), Oklahomans in 
California (Item 21), Filipinos (Item 27), and zootsuiters (Item 29). 

The Patriotism subscale differentiates high and low scorers as well as o 
the other subscales and on as great a variety of groups. The Discriminatory 
Powers range from 2.42 to 3.78, with an average D. P. of 3.07. Again the 
major hypotheses underlying the items are substantiated. Other nations 
(Japanese, Mexicans, refugees, and “inferior nations” generally) are re- 
garded as backward, immoral, and threatening. The superiority of the Amer- 
ican nation justifies a policy of destruction and subordination of others. 
Submissiveness and obedience to the ingroup are regarded as primary vir- 
tues, and a punitive attitude-so characteristically taken toward extranational 
and intranational outgroups-is taken toward conscientious objectors^ It is 
also interesting that Item 33, concerning the inevitability of war is highly 
differentiating (D. P. = 3-25)- I* is as if the ingroup-outgroup distinction 
and the intergroup hostility underlying it, are woven into the fabric of 
ethnocentric thinking; given a conflict with no conceivable possibility o 
resolution, there is nothing to do but make sure that the ingroup is on top 
and prepared to maintain itself. 

4. SECOND FORM OF THE E SCALE (FORM 78) 

In line with the general policy of contracting proven techniques in order 
to include new ones which might broaden the framework of the research, 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 


H 7 

the original 34-item E scale was shortened to 14 items in the next version 
of the questionnaire, Form 78. This questionnaire, described more fully in 
Chapter III, included four separate scales whose items, 78 in all, were inter- 
spersed randomly in a single series. The revised E scale is presented in Table 
8(IV). 

TABLE 8 (IV) 

The Second Form of the E Scale (Form 78) 

Old New 
No. No. a 

— 4. All forms of racial and religious discrimination should be made illegal 

and punishable. 

29. 7. Zootsuiters demonstrate that inferior groups, when they are given too 

much freedom and money, just misuse their privileges and create dis- 
turbances. 

12. 18. The main threat to basic American institutions during this century has 

come from foreign ideas, doctrines, and agitators. 

25- If an d when a new world organization is set up, America must be sure 

that she loses none of her independence and full sovereignty as a sep- 
arate nation. 

14. 29. Negroes have their rights, but it is best to keep them in their own 

districts and schools and to prevent too much contact with whites. 

9. 34. Women, if they work at all, should take the most feminine positions, 

such as nursing, secretarial work, or child care. 

5. 37. If Negroes live poorly, it’s because they are just naturally lazy, ignorant, 

and without self-control. 

— 41. America may not be perfect, but the American Way has brought us 

about as close as human beings can get to a perfect society. 

11. 45. It would be a mistake to have Negroes for foremen and leaders over 

whites. 

23. 48. The only full guarantee of future peace is to wipe out as many as pos- 

sible of the Germans and Japs, and to keep the rest under strict control. 

— 51. Most of our social problems would be solved if the immoral, corrupt, 

and defective people could somehow be removed from the scene. 
r 5. 54. One main difficulty with allowing the entire population to participate 

fully in government affairs is that such a large percentage is innately 
deficient and incapable. 

22. 57. The people who raise all the talk about putting Negroes on the same 

level as whites are mostly radical agitators trying to stir up conflicts. 

17. 64. Citizen or not, no Jap should be allowed to return to California. 

“ “New number” refers to the numbering of the items in Form 78. “Old number” refers 
to numbering in the initial form discussed previously. Slight revisions will be noted in 
the wording of several items. 

The general rules guiding contraction of the longer form were the same 
as those described previously in connection with the A-S scale. Statistical 
adequacy was again a necessary but not sufficient condition for retention of 
an item. It was deemed necessary to maintain broadness of coverage and to 
ensure nonduplication as well as significance of ideas. Revisions in the word- 



J l g the authoritarian personality 

ing of some items were made, especially in the direction of brevity and sim- 
plification. Item 9 of the initial form, suggesting that “woman’s place is in 
the home,” was entirely revised (present Item 34) in an attempt to improve 
its discriminability. In view of changing issues, former Item 17, which op- 
posed the entrance of Japanese-Americans into the army, was changed m 
the new form to Item 64, which opposes their return to California. 

There are four new items in the short form. Item 4 proposes legislation 
against discrimination; it is the first and only positive E item, that is, one 
in case of which agreement is given a low score. Number 25, a “patriotism 
item, was intended to appeal both to the open isolationist and to the kind of 
pseudointernationalist who, while more or less accepting the idea of a world 
organization, wanted nevertheless to maintain complete American sover- 
eignty and control. Item 41, which replaces several previous items, was 
intended to express an uncritically idealizing relation to America as a national 
ingroup. Finally, Item 51 refers to moral outgroups; it suggests that im- 
morality is a cause of our social problems (rather than a concurrent symp- 
tom), and it contains implicitly a punitive attitude against such people, al- 
though punitive action is not explicitly proposed. Also worth noting is this 
item’s stereotypic distinction between “good” people and bad people— 
the latter being the cause of the misfortunes of the former. This way of 
thinking often includes the “contempt for the masses” expressed in Item 54. 

The three subscales of the initial E scale are represented proportionately 
in the new form. There are four Negro items (29, 37, 45, 57), four Patriotism 
items (18, 25, 41, 48), and six Minority items (4, 7, 34, 5 1 * 54 , 6 4 )- 

It will be recalled from the preceding chapter that Form 78 was adminis- 
tered in the spring of 1945 to four groups: Public Speaking Class Women 
(N = 140), Public Speaking Class Men (N = 52), Extension Psychology 
Class Women (N = 40), all from the University of California; and the Pro- 
fessional Women (nurses, social workers, teachers; N — 63). 

The reliability data for the E scale (Form 78) are presented in Table 
9 (IV). The average reliability of .80 is at the lower level of significance in 
terms of precise measurement of the individual, but it is quite satisfactory 
for the group comparisons and correlations for which it was used. 7 This is 
perhaps all that could be expected of so short and diversified a scale. Hope 
of improvement is held out, however, by the possibility of eliminating or 
revising poorly discriminating items, and by the fact that the absence of 


t There are no absolute standards concerning what is an adequate reliability, as this 
varies with the variables measured, the uses to which the instrument wdl be put and so 
forth. In the present study the following approximate standards of reliability have been 
used, (a) Above .85: permits relatively precise measurement of the individual. (b)„From 
7^ to 85- permits rough ordering of individuals into, say, a quartile series of o , 
middle,” “high middle,” and “high.” Quite satisfactory for statistical analysis of group 
data, (c) From .60 to .75: lower level of adequacy, but sufficient for determining general 
relationships and for comparing extreme scorers. 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 


TABLE 9 (IV) 

RELIABILITY OF THE E- SCALE (FORM 78) 


"9 


Property 3 


Group b 


Over-all c 


A 

B 

C 

D 


Reliability 

.80 

.74 

.80 

.88 

.80 

Mean (total) 

3.44 

3. 33 

3. 68 

2. 72 

3. 29 

Mean (odd half) 

3. 36 

3. 11 

3. 68 

2.56 

3. 18 

Mean (even half) 

3.55 

3.52 

3.68 

2.87 

3. 40 

S.D. (total) 

1.07 

1.04 

1. 13 

1.21 

1. 11 

S.D. (odd half) 

1. 16 

1. 12 

1. 29 

1. 22 

1.20 

S. D. ( even hal f ) 

1. 15 

1. 18 

1. 25 

1. 37 

1. 24 

N 

140 

52 

40 

63 

295 

Range 

1.4-5. 9 

1.2-5. 9 

1. 2-6. 1 

1.0-5. 9 

1. 0-6. 1 


^he values of the means, S. D. ' s, and ranges are given in terms of mean 

per item. If multiplied by 14 (the number of items), they are converted 

into values representing total scale score per person. 

b The four groups on which these data are based are: 

Group A: U.C. Public Speaking Class Women 

Group B: U.C. Public Speaking Class Men 

Group Ci U.C. Extension Psychology Class Women 
Group D: Professional Women 

c In obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not 
weighted by N. 

extremely high scorers (restriction of “range of talent”) in these groups 
tends to depress the reliabilities somewhat. As in the case of the A-S scale, 
the Professional Women obtained the lowest mean and the highest reliabil- 
ity, being thus the least prejudiced and the most consistent group on both 
scales. The E scale means and ranges of all four groups indicate, on the 
average, slight disagreement with ethnocentric ideology, a sizable minority 
being strongly opposed and relatively few expressing strong support. 

The item analysis of the scale is presented in Table io(IV). The average 
D. P. of 2.90 is quite satisfactory for a scale of this length. Only one D. P. 
is below 2.1, and even this one (Item 4) is well above the minimum level of 
statistical significance. As in the initial, longer E scale, the items dealing with 
segregation and suppression of Negroes, opposition to “foreign infiltration” 
and zootsuiters, desire to “wipe out the Germans and Japs,” and so on, 
were highly discriminating. Two of the four new items also worked very 
well: Item 25, placing American sovereignty above world organization, had 
an over-all rank D. P. of 4; and Item 41, an expression of ethnocentric con- 
servatism in idealizing the “American Way,” ranked 7 in terms of over-all 
D. P. 

Among the poorest items are several which, only fairly successful in the 
initial form, were revised for Form 78 in an attempt at improvement. Thus, 



TABLE 10 (IV) 

MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS OF THE E- SCALE ITEMS (FORM 78) 


120 


<3 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 



CL 


















Q 

4*! 


(14) 

t-H 

in 

d 4 

CM 

(12) 

(13) 

p 

CO 

(IT) 

(9) 

(01) 

CO 

05 


40). 


OS 
















~ ii 

















§ Z 
H -w 

40 

a! 


i 

m 

CM 

O 

CD 

CM 

3 

O 

O 

CO 

H 

CD 

t-H 

in 

o 

9 

co d 4 

O CO 

CD 

CD 

CD 

CO 

8 

O 

05 

11 s 

H 

pH 

d 


H 

d 4 

CO 

CO 

•d 4 

CM 

CM 

CO 

CO 

CO CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

z e 

- O 

3 

















ec 

i 

tu 

05 

§ 


in 

05 

CO 

CO 

t- 

1 

o 

CD 

*— i 
■d 4 

•d 4 

C— 

CM 

05 

-d 4 

CO 

05 

o 

,50 

, 15 

t- 

05 

O 

CD 

d 4 

CM 

3 

05 3 

e n 

> 

o 

05 

s 


CO 

CO 

CO 

d 4 

CO 

CM 

t-H 

d 4 

•d 4 

CM CO 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CO 

o 3 

* r~i 

r i 


HHO)?Hin!DO)°WNWOO 

rqirJnni'tcqHriririwrinw 

moowooiowHnnt-^ 

oScQOCocoincoesio^^nt- 


cm cm rt 4 cm 


HrtrHncqwcoNH 


in c- 
•d 4 o 


s 


rt gi 'l' H ^ 

05 CM O O) CO 

CO CM d 4 4-4 CM CM CO 


■d 4 cm in *h m 

m 


O) ^ to CO 

h cn to h 


8 


CO CM 

in co 


rt 4 CO co m rf 


o in cm co 

o co CM CM 
cm cm in in 


o cm m oo m 

05 CM 05 05 CM 

CM CO CO CM CM 



CL 

8 

CO 

05 

to 

H 

in 

CO 

8 

CD 

CO 

CD 

CO 

i-H 

CO 

in 

o 

o 

O 

in 

CO 

CO 

H 

CM 

CO 

05 

CO 

in 

dno 

a. 

3 

o 


CD 

d 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CO 

CO 

CM 

i-H 

CO 

CO 

CM 

i-H 

1-H 

CM 

CM 

CM 

U 

O 

u 

O 


a 



















p 

o 

(h 

,s 

d 4 

-d 4 

8 

05 

CD 

o 

05 

CM 

pH 

CM 

•Tt 4 

in 

t- 

05 

CD 

o 

CO 

CD 

in 

37 

CO 

CO 

in 

c— 

.46 

*H 

co 

05 



a 

05 

s 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

d 4 

rH 

CO 

CO 

CM 

CO 

d 4 

CM 

CM 

CO 

u 

<0 

CO 




















in 



















•a 



















CO 

C- 

05 

ii 



CL 

t— 

H 

d 4 

05 

H 

o 

CO 

t— 

d 4 

in 

05 

CO 

m 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

t- 

t- 

CM 

o 

t- 

d 4 

d 4 

CM 

in 

CD 

05 

3 

3 

42 

z 


< 

d 

o 

CO 

CO 

CM 

d 4 

«— i 

CM 

CM 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

05 

c 


D. 

















>3 

05 


P 

2 

9 

05 

05 

CO 

t~ 

CD 

CO 

05 

CO 

s 

CO 

CD 

CD 

O 


CO 

CM 

9 S 

d 4 

d 4 

f— 1 

in 

CM 

in 

in 

d 4 

3 

3 

ss 

3 

CO 

a 

05 

s 

CO 

CO 

CO 

d 4 

CO 

CM 

CM 

d 4 

d 4 

CM 

CO 

d 4 

CM 

CM 

co 

44 

3 

3 

3 

to 


















•a 

—i 

II 



















U 





3 



c 

44 

3 


o 

42 

C 


•rH 

bO 

o 


44 

•iH 

•H 


3 

Uh 

44 

3 

N 


•iH 

3 

•iH 

3 

3 

05 

C 

> 

O 

T3 

3 

3 

a 

• 1-4 

bC 

42 



U 


3 

c 

O 

3 

c 


SI 


Jh 3 *iH T3 O P 

8 o 21) » | 

s a £ S S £ 


05 

2 

bD 

05 

z 


o 

l-l 

bO 


3 o 2 

3 >-■ o 

O bt <h 

S <U -H 

o z »-< 

e ■ 3 

o u 

(-1 

a c 


c 

.2 3 


E 

— Jh _ 
Q) 05 0) 

Z O cs 


.-I O 

P -rH 

8 ■§ 

CL DC 


^ h 2SncncoTfTfTfininm<o 


CO 

w >» 

cd bo 
H O 
O rH 

o 

bO 42 

C O 

■H >1 

JS 3 

cd Qu 

05 

a c 

« o 

tH 

O to 


3 X 
CU Cd 


u o 

d d 

-C O 


3 

3 

T3 


05 _ 

to bo 
05 C 
42 G 
•» JS 0) 

3 s 

42 05 O 

o a * 

CQ 

45 ^ 

*rH C 

c fH O 

o n -h 

3 to 

tQ Qu tO 

a a> 

3 • <W 

o o o 

. (-C 

bfi 3 CU 

*- « * 
3 OQ O 


H O O 
3 


3 

44 

42 

O 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 12 I 

Item 34, stating that women should be restricted to “feminine positions” 
such as nursing, ranked 12 out of 14. It is interesting that the women’s groups 
(A, C, D in Table io(IV)) tended predominantly to disagree with this item, 
obtaining means of only 1.9 to 2.7, while the group of college men showed 
a slight tendency to agree, having a mean of 4.4. Despite the similar Dis- 
criminatory Powers for men and women, the D. P. for women is probably 
more significant statistically, since their mean is so much lower. It would 
appear that the ethnocentric women are more bound, at least on the surface, 
to the traditional imagery of femininity, while the nonethnoeentrists wish to 
emancipate women, occupationally and otherwise, from their traditionally 
imposed limitations. While the relationship is far from perfect, it suggests 
that different patterns of ideology regarding masculinity and femininity may 
exist in the two groups. This general problem is investigated more fully in 
later chapters. 

The attempted improvements in Items 37 and 54 were also relatively un- 
successful. Item 37, which makes the Negroes entirely responsible for their 
own poverty, was apparently too strongly worded to receive much agree- 
ment (mean = 1.92). The low mean indicates that the D. P. of 2.16 is very 
significant; there is very little overlapping between low and high scorers, 
the former tending almost uniformly to disagree strongly (—3), while the 
latter disagree on the average only slightly (—1). Similarly, the relatively 
low D. P. of 2.7 and mean of 2.2 on Item 64 (No Japs in California) might 
have been higher had the item been given a pseudodemocratic coloring, 
thus allowing the ethnocentrists more moral justification for agreeing with 
it. Item 54, rejecting the bulk of the people as “innately deficient and in- 
capable,” has a more ambiguous relation to ethnocentrism. The subjects were 
evenly divided on this issue, and the D. P. of 2.7, while indicating a sig- 
nificant difference between the high and low quartiles, nevertheless permits 
considerable agreement by low scorers, disagreement by high scorers. 

Of the four entirely new items, two were among the least discriminating. 
Item 51, which suggests that our social problems could be solved by eliminat- 
ing “bad” people (rather than by changing the underlying social forces and 
institutions), had a D. P. of 2.3, rank 11, indicating a clear-cut difference be- 
tween the high and the low quartiles, but numerous exceptions as well. 

The poorest item, with a D. P. of 1.5, was number 4 (urging that dis- 
crimination be made illegal). The subjects were apparently evenly divided 
on this issue, and relatively few were willing to take an extreme stand either 
way. The fact that the Professional Women had a mean of 4.1 on this item, 
as compared with their scale mean of 2.7, was perhaps a straw in the wind 
to indicate that the attempted California Fair Employment Practices Law 
(referendum) of 1946 would receive far less than majority support. In their 
interview discussions many strongly anti-ethnocentric subjects— who clearly 
recognized the crucial role of discrimination in maintaining ingroup-out- 



122 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


group conflicts— were nevertheless political pacifists in the sense of being un- 
willing militantly to oppose discrimination. Some of the psychological 
sources of this point of view will be considered in later chapters. 

The E scale (Form 78), while adequate for its intended uses, was revised 
in the light of the results just discussed. The revision also took account of 
the correlations now to be considered, between the E and A-S scales. 

D. THE INCLUSION OF ANTI-SEMITISM WITHIN GENERAL 

ETHNOCENTRISM 

It will be recalled that the E scale contained no items referring to Jews; 
rather, the independent A-S scale was included within the total question- 
naire. We may now consider the correlations between these scales. 

The initial form of the questionnaire, administered in 1944 to the Uni- 
versity of California Psychology Class Women, contained the 52-item A-S 
scale and the 34-item E scale. Correlations of the A-S scale with the E scale 
and its subscales are presented in Table n (IV). 

TABLE 11 (IV) 

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE A-S AND E SCALES (INITIAL FORMS) a 

E Subscale 

Total E Scale "Negroes" "Minorities" "Patriotism" 

A-S .80 l 74 l 76 . 69 

^he reliabilities of these scales, as presented previously, are as 

follows: A-S = . 92 ; E = .91; "Negroes" = .91: "Minorities" = .82; 

"Patriotism" = . 80 . 

The correlation of .80 between E and A-S permits a further broadening 
in the conception of ethnocentrism. The correlations of .69-76 between 
A-S and the E subscales are only slightly lower than the correlations of 
.74~.83 among the E subscales (see Section C, above). These values indicate 
once again the generality of the ethnocentric approach to group relations. 
Anti-Semitism is best regarded, it would seem, as one aspect of this broader 
frame of mind; and it is the total ethnocentric ideology, rather than prejudice 
against any single group, which requires explanation. The fact that A-S 
correlates slightly less with the E subscales than the latter correlate among 
themselves may be due in part to the shortened range of A-S scores (absence 
of extreme highs); however, it appears likely that there are certain specific 
determinants of anti-Semitism apart from those which hold for general ethno- 
centrism. 

The correlations between the A-S and E scales in Form 78, presented in 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 1 23 

Table 12 (IV), provide a further indication of the generality of ethnocen- 
trism. The average correlation, .68, is lower than that of .80 obtained in 
the initial form. This difference is due partially to the decreased reliability 
of the shortened E scale. However, it suggests once again that anti-Semitism, 


TABLE 12 (IV) 

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE A- S AND E SCALES (FORM 78) 


Group 

N_ 

Correlation 

Public Speaking women 

140 

.71 

Public Speaking men 

52 

.75 

Extension women 

40 

.63 

Professional women 

63 

. 63 

Mean r a 

295 

.68 


^he mean r is unweighted for N and not based on Z r . 


while it is essentially a facet of a broader ethnocentric pattern, may neverthe- 
less have certain independent determinants of its own. 

1 . THE THIRD FORM OF THE E SCALE (FORM 60) 

The close, though imperfect, relationship between the A-S and E scales 
in Form 78 led, in the construction of Questionnaire Form 60, to their con- 
traction into an inclusive 12-item E scale. This scale, presented in Table 13 
(IV), contains 4 A-S items (numbers 8, 21, 38, 47), 3 Negro items (14, 28, 
42), and 5 items dealing with other minorities and with patriotism. Once 
again slight revisions in the wording have frequently been made, particularly 
in the direction of simplicity and brevity. Again items were selected on the 
basis both of statistical adequacy and theoretical significance. Two items (42, 
55) were included, despite their previous low means and D. P.’s, because 
they seemed to express significant ideas and because the means, and thus 
the D. P.’s, were expected to go up in some of the groups to be tested. Item 
59 (“Okies”) was recovered from the initial E scale. 

a. The Groups Studied. Questionnaire Form 60 was administered in the 
summer of 1945 to the following groups: 

1. Summer session students in psychology classes at the University of 
Oregon (one of us taking advantage of his summer teaching position there). 

2. Summer session students in an education class at the University of Cali- 
fornia. 8 Whereas the Oregon students were almost entirely of college age, 
the members of this particular education class at the University of California 
were somewhat older (age range about 25-45), the most common occupation 

8 We wish to express our thanks to Dr. Harold Carter for the administration of the 
questionnaires to his class. 



I2 4 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE 13 (IV) 

The Third Form of the E Scale (Form 60) 

3. Zootsuiters prove that when people of their type have too much money 
and freedom, they just take advantage and cause trouble. 

8. One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and prevent 
other people from having a fair chance in competition. 

14. Negroes have their rights, but it is best to keep them in their own districts 
and schools and to prevent too much contact with whites. 

21. I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew. 

28. It would be a mistake ever to have Negroes for foremen and leaders over 
whites. 

33. If and when a new world organization is set up, America must be sure that 
she loses none of her independence and complete power in matters that affect 
this country. 

38. There may be a few exceptions, but in general, Jews are pretty much alike. 
42. If Negroes live poorly, it’s mainly because they are naturally lazy, ignorant, 
and without self-control. 

47. The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they gradually 
give it a typical Jewish atmosphere. 

51. The worst danger to real Americanism during the last 50 years has come 
from foreign ideas and agitators. 

55. Citizen or not, no Jap should be allowed to return to California. 

59. For the good of all, the Oklahomans (“Okies”) who recently flooded Cali- 
fornia ought to be sent back home as soon as possible. 

being that of teacher, although other, particularly semiprofessional, occupa- 
tions were well represented. 

3. Men’s service clubs (Kiwanis, Lions, Rotary) in the vicinity of the Uni- 
versity of Oregon. 

In order that separate data for men and women might be obtained, the 
above groups were divided and recombined for statistical purposes. The first 
University of Oregon class obtained included enough women to form a 
statistical group (Group I, N = 47). However, the second class at Oregon 
was too small to be divisible into statistically adequate subgroups of men and 
women, and so was the class at California. Accordingly, statistical Group II 
contains the combined Oregon and California Student Women (N — 54), 
Group III the combined men (N = 57). Finally, Group IV contains the 
Oregon Service Club Men (N = 68). 

b. Reliability. The reliability data for the E Scale (Form 60) are pre- 
sented in Table i4(IV). The reliabilities, ranging from .82 to .88 and aver- 
aging .86 for the four groups, are entirely adequate in terms of currently 
accepted standards. The obtained scores cover most of the possible range 
( 1. 0-7.0) with the exception of the extremely high end; there are few scores 
of over 6.0. A slight predominance of low scores is also indicated by the 
group means, which are well below the neutral point of 4.0. 

The differences among the various groups are of some interest. The highest 
degree of ethnocentrism was expressed by the Oregon Service Club Men. 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 


I2 5 


TABLE 14 (IV) 

RELIABILITY OF THE E SCALE (FORM 60) a 


Property 


Group 


Over-all 


I 

II 

III 

IV 


Reliability 

.88 

.88 

.86 

.82 

.86 

Mean (total) 

3.43 

3. 25 

2.96 

3.55 

3. 30 

Mean (odd half) 

3.48 

3. 24 

2. 95 

3.72 

3.35 

Mean (even half) 

3.38 

3.26 

2.97 

3.43 

3.26 

S. D. (total) 

1.38 

1. 29 

1. 26 

1. 11 

1. 26 

S.D. (odd half) 

1. 63 

1.77 

1. 38 

1.21 

1.50 

S. D. (even half) 

1.30 

1.53 

1. 23 

1. 17 

1.31 

N. 

47 

54 

57 

68 

226 

Range 

1.0-6. 3 

1. 1-5. 9 

1.0-6. 3 

1. 3-5.8 

1.0-6. 3 


^he four groups on which these data are based are: 

Group I: University of Oregon Student Women. 

Group II: University of Oregon and University of California Student 
Women. 

Group III: University of Oregon and University of California Student 
Men. 

Group IV: Oregon Service Club Men. 

Their mean of 3.55 is significantly higher (1 per cent level) than the lowest 
mean, 2.96, obtained by the University Student Men. We may note that the 
group of Service Club Men was also the most constricted in its range of 
scores (1.3-5. 8) an d m i ts internal variability (S. D. = 1.11); that is, its 
members tended to cluster around the middle position so that there are few 
extreme high or low scorers. These considerations help to explain why 
the E scale has the lowest reliability in this group and why the average D. P. 
is, as will be shown below, also lower for this group than for the others. 
That this group should exhibit a clustering around a modal “point of con- 
formity” is perhaps not surprising, since conformity is one of its central 
values. It may, however, be surprising to some that the mode should be in a 
middle rather than a more extreme position. 

It is also of some interest that the California subjects are slightly less 
ethnocentric than the Oregonians. Thus, Group I, composed entirely of 
Oregon students, has a slightly higher mean than Group II (3.43 to 3.25), 
which is more than half Californian in make-up. The likelihood of a regional 
difference is given greater weight by the fact that at least two items (55, 
“Japs,” and 59, “Okies,” and perhaps also 3, “Zootsuiters”) refer specifically 
to conditions in California. A slight, though also not statistically significant 
difference is found between comparable sex groups, the University Student 
Women (Group II) having a higher mean than the University Student Men 
(Group III) (3.25-2.96). No consistent, significant difference between com- 



MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS OF THE E- SCALE ITEMS (FORM 60) 


126 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 



cl 
















0 

























i-i 



03 

0 





01 

c- 

03 

in 


rH 

00 

fH 

CO 

00 


f-H 



§ 


' 




■w 



„ 









OS 















rH 

ou 


03 

00 

8 

8 

to 

rH 

03 

03 

8 

03 

00 

03 

O 

00 

00 


CO 

03 

O 

to 

rH 

^■H 

a 

d 


cd 

00 

rH 

CO 

rH 

00* 

CO 

03 

cd 

cd 


03 

cd 

u 
















o> 

S 


§ 

rH 

CO 

00 

CO 

03 

rH 

00 

03 

03 

0 

CO 

8 

> 

09 


r- 

CO 

00 

03 

CO 

rH 


w— 1 

00 

rH 

OJ 


s 


00 

00 

eo 

rH 

00 

rH 

CO 

cd 

cd 

03 

cd 

cd 

cd 




rK 

03 

CO 

S 

in 

O 

03 

t- 

s 

9-i 

0 

rH 

rH 

> 

cl 


r-4 

03 

03 

0 

O 

00 

CO 

CO 

in 

00 

00 

















§, 

0 

Q 


00 

03 

03 

CO 

rH 

rH 

CO 

03 

03 

OO 

1H 

O 

03 

q 


to 

£ 

c- 

0 - 


03 

o 

03 

00 

in 

0 


CO 

H 

O 

03 

03 


0 

in 

rH 

CO 

CO 

03 

CO 

00 

03 

0 

co 

in 


s 


rH 

00 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

cd 

03 

cd 

cd 

cd 

r-4 

cd 




t- 

t- 

00 

0 

O- 

O 

CO 

O 

00 

£3 

00 

CO 

tn 


CL 


0 

rH 

03 

CO 

CO 

00 

CO 

00 

03 


03 

0 

hH 

Q 


CO 

00 

00 

cd 

00 

00 

cd 

W* 

cd 

03 

rH 

cd 

cd 

& 

s 


t- 

3.40 

CO 


00 

wH 

00 

CO 

3.00 

in 

CO 

03 

in 

2 

0 

« 

03 

s 


O- 

cd 

TH 

00 

CO 

00 

in 

00 

03 

00 

03 

03 

00 

o* 

03 

Oi 

r-4 

y-H 

03 

cd 




CO 

0 - 

CO 

r~ 

CD 

CO 

CO 

00 

t- 

00 

o* 

CO 

8 

1 — i 

CL 


0 

CO 

03 

CO 

rH 

C— 

CO 

03 

0 

rH 

CO 

00 

1— 1 
















& 

a 


co 

CO 

in 

03 

rH 

Cd 

00 

rH 

cd 

00 

rH 

CM 

CO 

3 

p 

c 


t-i 

in 

0 

8 

C- 

th 

in 

rH 

r— 

CO 

00 

rH 

in 

u 

0 

ed 

ft> 


rH 

CD 

t— 

co 

in 

r- i 

O 

0 

m 

rH 

rH 

03 

25 


ed 

00 

CO 

rH 

CO 

rH 

cd 

cd 

cd 

03 

03 

cd 

cd 




rH 

1 - 

in 

in 

03 

00 

00 

CO 

0 

rH 

03 

03 

03 


CL 


co 

rH 

m 

rH 

CO 

03 

00 

rH 

0 

in 

CO 

OO 

rH 

& 

d 


cd 

00 

th 

rH 

*3 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

cd 

cd 

cd 

cd 

3 

O 

c 


TH 


P 

rH 

0 

03 

O 

rH 

O 

rH 

rH 

03 

eo 

O 



CO 

W-4 

03 

0 

rH 

C— 

00 

OO 

O- 

00 

CO 

rH 


CO 


CO 

rH 

rH 

rH 

cd 

rH 

od 

03 

cd 

cd 

cd 











• 












c 















0 


















03 












4-> 



U 








c 




cd 



O 








a> 



3 

N 



X2 

03 






, — . 

e 

03 


S3 

•rH 


>> 

XI 

cd 



e 


g 


03 

Vi 

•L> 


E 

q 


N 

bD 

03 



03 


(I) 


Li 

Vi 

J=, 

03 

03 

cd 

03 

cd 


T3 



+* 


+-> 


03 

03 

bD 

•O 

Li 

bD 


rH 

03 

•rH 



•rH 


HH 


•L> 

c 

•rH 


O 

L. 

•rH 


C 







•rH 

•rH 

Lr 

al 


0 


VI 


q 

03 


Ll 



3 

M 





03 

J5 

bfi 

& 

s 

03 



« 

3 

2 

f>> 

O 

T3 


O 

03 

•rH 

DQ 

Q, 




X2 

Li 

Li 

1— 1 

CO 

Li 

•rH 

03 

*~3 

03 




O 


bO 

Lj 

bO 

Li 

•* 

bO 


Li 


•rH 

a 





Z 

cd 

S 

03 

SS 

B 

03 

*-o 

03 

2 

03 

*“3 

£ 

O 

z 

Jji 

O 

03 





' ’ 

w 


w 

- w 



Nw ^ 



£ 


d 


CO 

00 

rH 

rH 

00 

CO 

00 

cd 

id 

wm 

in 

03 



2 




rH 

03 

03 

eo 

00 

rH 

rH 

to 

in 

in 



rH . 
W -h 
C- 

I! U3 


a The four groups on which these data are based are: 

Group I: University of Oregon Student Women (N = 47 ), 

Group 11: University of Oregon and University. of California Student Women (N 

Group III: University of Oregon and University of California Student Men (N = 

Group TV: Oregon Service Club Men (N = 68 ). 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 1 27 

parable groups of men and women has been found, as may be noted below 
in the results on additional groups (p. 133 ff.). 

c. Item Analysis. The results of the item analysis of the E scale (Form 
60) are presented in Table 15 (IV). The average D. P. of 3.15 is very satis- 
factory. The three lowest D. P.’s (1. 8-2.1) were obtained by the items having 
the lowest means (2. 1-2. 3). Two of these items, numbers 42 and 55, ob- 
tained similar means on previous forms of the scale. They were included 
here, slightly revised, with the expectation that the present groups might 
agree more strongly. This expectation was not borne out. In view of the 
relatively strong rejection of Oklahomans in California, the low mean and 
D. P. of Item 59 are probably due more to faults in formulation than to the 
inadequacy of the idea which we intended to express. Even the three poorest 
items, however, differentiate significantly and with a minimum of overlap 
between the high and low quartiles, the low scorers being strongly opposed 
(almost uniform responses of —3), the high scorers tending to disagree 
only slightly. 9 

The rank order of goodness of items is, on the whole, consistent with 
previous results. The five best items (14, 21, 28, 33, 38) include two referring 
to Negroes, two to Jews, and one to world organization; these items ranked 
similarly in earlier forms. Item 3 (Zootsuiters) has a rank of 9, as compared 
with a rank of i on Form 78. The drop may well be due to the fact that the 
zootsuiter issue was less focal, and therefore less likely to produce extreme 
agreement or disagreement, in Oregon than in California. The groups taking 
Form 60 agree quite well among themselves regarding the relative level of 
acceptability (mean) and level of discriminability (D. P.) of the items. While 
rank-order correlations between the groups were not computed, it appears 
from inspection of Table 15 (IV) that the mean or D. P. rank of each item 
is fairly stable from group to group. 

2. THE FOURTH FORM OF THE E SCALE (FORMS 45 AND 40) 

The fourth and final form of the E Scale (see Table 16 (IV)), as used 
in Form 45, involved the deletion of two items (“Japs” and “Okies”) from 
the previous form, the other ten items remaining intact. It was understood 
that this contraction of the E scale would eliminate many of its qualitative 
functions and would probably lower its reliability to the minimum required 
by the present research purposes. Nevertheless, the intention to distribute 
the questionnaire to a wide variety of groups, many of whom would have 
very little time for filling it out, made every reduction in size seem desirable. 
The entire Questionnaire Form 45 could, accordingly, be filled out in ap- 
proximately thirty minutes— short enough so that, for example, a club or 

9 The group mean for each item is usually about midway between the means for the 
high and low quartiles. It is therefore legitimate to infer the quartile means from the item 
mean and D. P. 



128 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE 1 6 (IV) 

The Fourth Form of the E Scale (Forms 45 and 40)® 

E a 5. Zootsuiters prove that when people of their type have too much money 
and freedom, they just take advantage and cause trouble. 

E a 10. Negroes have their rights, but it is best to keep them in their own dis- 
tricts and schools and to prevent too much contact with whites. 

E a 15 ’ The worst danger to real Americanism during the last 50 years has 
come from foreign ideas and agitators. 

E a 20. It would be a mistake ever to have Negroes for foremen and leaders 
over whites. 

E b 24. One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and 
prevent other people from having a fair chance in competition. 

E b 28. I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew. 

E b 32. If Negroes live poorly, it’s mainly because they are naturally lazy, 
ignorant, and without self-control. 

Eb There may be a few exceptions, but in general, Jews are pretty much 

alike. 

E b 40. The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they 
gradually give it a typical Jewish atmosphere. 

E a 45. If and when a new world organization is set up, America must be sure 
that she loses none of her independence and complete power in matters 
that affect this country. 

* The five E A items constitute the entire E scale in Form 40. The total ten-item scale was 
given, numbered as it appears above, in Form 45. The reliability of Form 45 was obtained 
by correlating the 5 E A items with the remaining 5 E B items. It will be noted that there 
are no items about Jews in E A , it being desired as a practical aim to construct a ques- 
tionnaire which would give an index of anti-Semitism without mentioning Jews at all. 

organization could take it during a meeting, just before hearing a talk not 
directly related to the questionnaire. 

Demands of practicality and expediency forced an additional compromise. 
Questionnaire Form 40 was even shorter than Form 45; in addition to con- 
tractions of other techniques, the E scale in this form was reduced to five 
items (as shown in Table i6(IV)). A primary reason for Form 40 was that 
certain groups might be unable to spare even the thirty minutes required by 
Form 45. An additional consideration in the contraction of the E scale, how- 
ever, was the possibility that, in certain groups at least, the items referring 
to Jews might be too “controversial” or might focus attention too directly 
on the issue of prejudice. Accordingly, the five E A items in Form 40 contain 
no direct reference to Jews. They deal, rather, with Negroes, zootsuiters, 
foreigners, and “world organization.” (In Form 45 the E scale contains, in 
addition to these, five E b items, four referring to Jews, one to Negroes.) 
It was recognized that these five items do not constitute a scale in the more 
technical sense, but this loss seemed justified by the gain in applicability to 
various groups. 

Our conclusions regarding the advantage of using Form 40 ought perhaps to be 
noted for those faced with similar problems. Although it avoided focusing atten- 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 


129 

tion on Jews, the loss in terms of research aims was not sufficiently compensated 
for by the small gain in time nor by elimination of resistance. Indeed, the resistance 
encountered seemed to be based as much on the other phases of the questionnaire 
as on the E scale. Probably the basic opposition psychologically was to being 
“investigated” at all in an intensive way. Unlike the usual several-question poll, 
this questionnaire seemed, to many a subject, to identify him as a total individual 
even though he knew that his anonymity was preserved. In some cases this was 
highly anxiety-producing despite our careful attempts at reassurance and at ex- 
plaining the entire procedure in terms of an impersonal, public opinion, nonindi- 
vidual approach. In some cases it was impossible to gain the cooperation of the 
leadership of a group; in other cases cooperative leaders were unable to put the 
idea across or to have it carried out. Difficulties of this sort were as great with 
Form 40 as with Form 45. Once a group was induced to cooperate, there were very 
few omissions of questions or scale items in either form. In short, resistance was 
related more to the general nature of the questionnaire than to any specific in- 
dividual items. Form 45 might therefore have been used on practically all of the 
groups tested. When it is absolutely necessary to delete certain items— e.g., if one 
were testing groups with a large Jewish or Negro membership and items referring 
to these groups might cause friction— probably the best procedure would be to 
have alternative items to replace those deleted. 

While the number of groups which were actively but unsuccessfully ap- 
proached is not large, there is some indication that resistance of the type men- 
tioned above is correlated positively with ethno centrism. For example, 
among the “Middle-Class Women” (Table i5(V)) there was an exclusive 
club which “just barely” decided to cooperate and which refused even to 
consider our request for volunteers to be interviewed. This group obtained 
one of the highest E means of all groups tested. Such resistance was seldom 
encountered in less ethnocentric groups. This difficulty might have been ex- 
pected on the basis of the ethnocentrists’ tendency toward self-deception 
and concern with prying, which was expressed indirectly in the responses 
on the A-S and E scales, and which is brought out more directly in the 
chapters that follow. 

Considerations of this type are of great importance in any attempt to 
generalize from a research sample to a broader population. Thus, because of 
the greater resistance of ethnocentrists to psychological investigation, it is 
likely that the average degree of ethnocentrism (over-all mean E score) in 
our total sample is somewhat lower than that which would be found in a 
truly random or truly representative sample. Even in the more customary 
public opinion polls, where population areas are often mapped out in ad- 
vance (stratification or other attempt at representative sampling), an ade- 
quate sample may not be achieved because, in their door-to-door polling, 
interviewers cannot reach those subjects who are unreceptive to the idea of 
being “tested.” 10 

10 The common assumption that “any 50 people” within a given area or income level 
will do, and that errors of sampling on an individual level will cancel each other out, 
overlooks the likelihood that receptivity may correlate with what is being polled. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


I 3° 

It seems necessary, therefore, in describing the groups on whom data were 
obtained, to mention briefly the nature and adequacy of the sampling pro- 
cedure. 

a. The Sample and the Sampling Procedure. The distribution of Forms 
45 and 40 took place during the latter part of 1945 and the first half of 1946, 
a period of about nine months in all. Form 45 was given to the following 
groups: 11 

1. Testing Class Women (N = 59). This was an adult evening class given by 
the Extension Division of the University of California. Since it was a class in 
Psychological Tests, it probably attracted a more diversified group than does the 
usual adult class in psychology. It was expected to contain not only individuals 
seriously interested in understanding themselves better— individuals who, as we 
shall see later, are not likely to be extremely ethnocentric— but also persons in- 
terested in psychology more as a means of manipulating others. The class was also 
varied with respect to age (range about 20-50), income, and previous education. 
Therefore, despite the desire to get away from the university groups which pre- 
dominated in our previous samples, we could not resist taking the opportunity to 
test this marginal university group. The questionnaire was administered during a 
class meeting, all members being present. The men were too few to constitute a 
separate statistical group, and our policy of separating the sexes— perhaps too 
strictly adhered to— prevented us from combining them. 

2. San Quentin State Prison ( California ) Inmates (N — no). Since these men 
constitute a particularly important group, psychologically and sociologically, they 
were studied more intensively than the others; the sampling procedures and results 
are discussed in detail in Chapter XXI. It may suffice here to say that the sample 
was well randomized. 

3. and 4. Psychiatric Clinic Patients (71 women, 50 men). This group, like the 
San Quentin group, was considered to have special importance both practically 
and for a full theoretical understanding of our problem. As a “key group,” it 
seemed to merit thorough study and analysis (Chapter XXII). The questionnaires 
were administered individually (each subject filling out the questionnaire by him- 
self) as part of the clinic routine, and there appeared to be no systematic bias 
operating in the selection of cases. 

5. W orking-Class Men and W omen. |A number of small groups were combined 
to form the “working-class” sample on which statistics were computed. Of the 
53 women in this sample, 19 were from the California Labor School (an extremely 
liberal school for working people which has classes in a variety of fields, from 
trade unionism to arts and crafts), 8 were members of the United Electrical 
Workers, C.I.O., 10 were new members of the International Longshoremen and 
Warehousemen’s Union (I.L.W.U., C.I.O.), and 16 were office workers obtained 

11 The collection of questionnaires from these groups would have been impossible 
without the generous cooperation of numerous people. We wish to express our gratitude 
to Dr. Merle H. Elliott, who obtained questionnaires from his class in the Extension 
Division of the University of California, Dr. David G. Schmidt, who made the necessary 
arrangements for the San Quentin Group, Dr. Karl Bowman and Dr. Robert Harris, who 
made it possible for us to obtain subjects at the Langley Porter Clinic, Dr. Barbara Kirch- 
heimer, who made the arrangements, and Mrs. Emily Moulton, who collected question- 
naires at the U.S. Employment Service, Captain Malcolm E. Crossman, who gave his 
support, and Dr. Boyd R. McCandless, who gave freely of his time in obtaining question- 
naires at the Alameda School for Merchant Marine Officers. 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 1 3 I 

through the employers. fThe 61 men were obtained similarly: 15 were from the 
California Labor Schodf, 12 from the United Electrical Workers, 26 from the 
I.L.W.U., and 8 from the United Seamen’s Service. All groups were obtained in 
the San Francisco Bay area. The Labor School subjects constitute the total mem- 
bership of various classes, the questionnaire being administered in class. 12 The 20 
Electrical Workers were obtained in the union hall as they came in on business 
matters. The 36 I.L.W.U. members were given the questionnaire at the beginning 
of a class for new members before any indoctrination had started. While the 
female office workers took the questionnaire at the request of interested employers, 
it was understood that they maintained their anonymity, and no systematic selec- 
tive factors appear to have entered in. Less reliance can be placed on the male 
sample from the Seamen’s Service, since the 8 subjects are but a small percentage 
of those passing in and out of the center. The working-class sample as a whole 
does not appear to reflect, in either a random or a representative manner, the 
actual working-class population, and any generalizations from the data must be 
drawn tentatively and with great caution. 

The bulk of the working-class sample was given Form 40, only 19 women and 
31 men receiving Form 45. Therefore, for the statistical purpose of relating the 
E scale to the other scales and measures (see Chapters V through VII), all ques- 
tionnaires were treated as if they were Form 40, that is, only E A was statisticized 
in Form 45. In consequence there are results- on Form 40 for Working-Class 
Women (N = 53) and Working-Class Men (N = 6i). 

However, when additional data were desired on the total Form 45 E scale, it 
was decided to combine the 19 women and 31 men into a single sample, 13 the 
Working-Class Men and Women (Form 45) (N = 50). This sample is, then, 
actually a part of the larger Form 40 sample (see below). The men in the Form 45 
sample were obtained from the groups mentioned above in almost exactly the 
same proportions as those taking Form 40. However, the Form 45 women are 
preponderantly from the Labor School and the United Electrical Workers’ Union, 
and may consequently differ systematically from the others with respect to E. 

Form 40 was given to a number of groups forming the following statistical 
samples: 

6. George Washington University Women (N = 132). This group comprises 
the total female membership of several day and evening classes in psychology at 
George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 14 (There were so few men 
that their questionnaires were not statisticized.) It was included out of an interest 
in regional differences between California and the East, even though only limited 
generalizations can be drawn from so selected a sample. 

7. California Service Club Men (N = 63). Two service clubs, Kiwanis and 
Rotary, comprise this sample. Questionnaires were filled out during a customary 
luncheon meeting (procedure not previously announced) just prior to the fea- 
tured talk, given by a member of our staff. 


12 It appeared necessary to distinguish “middle-class” from “working-class” members 
of the Labor School, and to place the former in the broader “middle-class” sample. (See the 
discussion of the middle-class sample, Form 40.) The present figures refer only to working- 
class members. 

13 This sample was used only for getting the reliability data on the Form 45 E scale; no 
statistics were computed on the other scales. 

14 As mentioned previously, while the questionnaire was administered to all present, only 
the native-born, white, non-Jewish, American subjects were included in th® statistical 
treatment. The N’s reported refer to the number of cases treated statistically. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


1 3 2 

8. Middle-Class Men (N = 69) and 9. Middle-Class Women (N = 154). These 
two samples represent the combination, for statistical purposes, of the following 
groups: The membership at a meeting of the Parent-Teachers’ Association in a 
“solid” middle-class section of Berkeley, California (46 women, 29 men). Again, 
the questionnaire was administered just before the featured talk on child training. 
The membership of a Protestant church in a small town just outside of San Fran- 
cisco (29 women, 31 men). The 15 women in a local Unitarian Church group. The 
members of the California Labor School who appeared to be “middle class” in 
terms of occupation (lawyer, engineer, independent businessman, etc.) and in- 
come (n women, 9 men); in case of doubt the individual remained in the 
“working-class” sample discussed above. The 17 women in one division or panel 
of the local League of Women Voters. Finally, the 36 members of an exclusive, 
upper middle-class women’s club. It would appear, then, that these two samples, 
particularly the women, represent diverse elements of the middle class. 

10. Working-Class Men (N — 61) and 11. Working-Class Women (N=53). 
These groups have been described above in connection with the Form 45 sample 
of Working-Class Men and Women. 

12. Los Angeles Men (N = 117) and 13. Los Angeles Women (N = 130). 15 
In an attempt to obtain greater regional diversity for the total sample, a group of 
men and women was tested in the Los Angeles area. Because of time limitations 
the sampling procedure was not thoroughly controlled, and exact figures are not 
available on the number of subjects in each of the groups comprising the sample. 
Subjects were obtained from the following groups (not more than 25 per cent of 
the total N from any one group): parents of college students (volunteers), high 
school teachers, veterans at a counseling center, Radio Writers Guild (tested 
during a meeting), League of Women Voters, Boy Scout leaders, members of an 
anti-Semitic organization (12 responders out of some 100 questionnaires mailed 
out), and several small local clubs and neighborhood groups. The sample is pri- 
marily middle class in composition, although it cannot be considered clearly 
representative of the middle-class population. Moreover, its mean may be syste- 
matically lowered by the relatively high educational level and by the fact that 
many of the subjects were obtained on a volunteer basis. It was suitable for the 
present research purposes, however, since it appeared highly diverse with respect 
to ethnocentrism and with respect to the social and psychological characteristics 
whose relations to ethnocentrism were being investigated. 

In addition to the above groups, the following two groups received both Forms 
45 and 40: 

14. Employment Service Men Veterans (N =106). It seemed likely, early in 
1946, that the questionnaire, particularly the F scale (see Chapter VII) and the 
projective questions (Chapter XV) could reveal much that was of interest to the 
clinician and the vocational counselor. Thus, when the questionnaire was given 
to veterans seeking vocational guidance at the local U. S. Employment Service, 
it was with the thought that it would be an aid to the agency as well as to the 
research. With a few exceptions, all (white, Christian) male veterans coming in 
for counseling during a several-month period starting early in 1946 were given the 
questionnaire, the first 51 receiving Form 45, the next 55, Form 40. The excep- 
tions were men who seemed not to have enough education to handle the question- 
naire and men in whose case a convenient time could not be arranged. This group 
can thus be considered a relatively random sample of the counselees. However, 

15 Thes$ questionnaires were collected by Dr. J. F. Brown with the assistance of Emily 
Gruen and Carol Creedon. 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 133 

it may well be that counselees as a group are not representative of the veteran 
population. Thus, our sample is above average in socioeconomic level (see Chap- 
ter V) and in education and intelligence (see Chapter VIII). Furthermore, on 
the basis of evidence to be presented in later chapters, particularly Chapter XI, it 
appears likely that willingness to seek guidance, and especially to accept the mild 
psychotherapy going with it, is more common in nonethnocentrists than in others. 
How serious a sampling bias this produces depends in part on other factors which 
might impel ethnocentric individuals to seek help (e.g., external pressures, or a 
tendency to conceive of the Service as benevolent authority). At any rate, it is not 
unlikely that the mean E score for this sample may be somewhat lower than for 
the veteran population generally. 

15. Maritime School Men (N — 343). This group comprises the entire mem- 
bership of a government training school for Merchant Marine officers. The school 
is located in Alameda (San Francisco Bay area), but its students come from all 
parts of the country. Upon admission all of them must have had at least fourteen 
months of active service as unlicensed seamen. The questionnaires were adminis- 
tered during the study periods, under well-controlled conditions, by members of 
the Psychology staff who seemed to be on excellent terms with the men. Half of 
the study sections received Form 45, the other half Form 40, the halves being 
roughly equated in terms of ability and time in school. This group, like the one 
described immediately above, cannot be considered a fully representative sample 
of the armed services population. It is selected in at least the following ways: 
predominantly lower middle-class background, relatively few members coming 
from the lower socioeconomic strata or from the upper middle class or above; 
above average in upward social mobility-in the desire to “raise oneself socially 
and financially”; above average in intelligence, this being a primary qualification 
for admission (mean AGCT score of 126.2, range of 102-153). 16 Despite these 
relative uniformities, the group is extremely diverse in most other ways. 

b. Reliability and Group Differences. The reliability data for Forms 
45 an d 4° are presented in Table 17 (IV). As noted above, the 5-item E A 
scale in Form 40 contained no items referring to Jews; Form 45 contained 
these five items plus five E B items, four of which are from the former A-S scale. 
Since the small number of items in Form 40 made it unfeasible to compute a re- 
liability coefficient, it was decided to determine the reliability of the total 
scale by correlating E A with E B rather than by correlating odd-even or 
equivalent halves. This procedure gave some indication of the degree of 
equivalence between scores on Form 40 and scores on Form 45; it provided, 
for example, a partial answer to the question: of a gtoup scoring in the low 
quartile on the E A scale, what percentage would score in the low quartile on 
E a + B ? The average reliability of .79 for the seven groups taking Form 45 
(Table 1 7 (IV) A, C) indicates that the overlap is relatively great— although 
it also brings out the advantage of using the longer scale. 

The present method of computing reliability, while it was helpful in de- 
termining the degree of relationship between E A and E A + B , and in showing 

16 No detailed description of the social and psychological properties of the various 
groups will be presented in this chapter. Instead, each set of properties will be ^presented 
and discussed in the appropriate chapter, e.g., politico-economic properties in Chapter V, 
religion in Chapter VI, and so on. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


*34 

the great, though incomplete, unity in ethnocentric ideology, had neverthe- 
less the disadvantage of yielding lower reliabilities than would have been ob- 
tained by a division into odd-even or equivalent halves. Two halves equated 
for content are certainly likely to intercorrelate more highly than two halves, 
such as E a and E B , which differ in content. This hypothesis was tested on 
two groups. In the case of the San Quentin Men, who obtained an E A — E B 
reliability of .65, the lowest of any group tested, the reliability rose to .79 
when odd-even halves were used. In a group of 517 women, students at the 
University of California, 17 the reliability based on E A vs. E B was .79, while 
the odd-even reliability was .87. Since in its usual meaning “reliability” 
refers to the relation between ‘“equivalent measures of the same thing,” 
the reliability of the total E scale is probably around .85 on the average, a 
value which meets current testing standards. 

In view of the shortness of the E scale (Form 40), it was not feasible to 
compute reliabilities on it. Instead, the mean Discriminatory Power (D. P.) 


TABLE 17 (IV) 

RELIABILITY OF THE E SCALE (FORMS 45 AND 40) 
A. Groups Taking Form 45 (E a +b) 


Property 



Group a 



Over- all b 


I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 


Reliability 0 

.82 

.65 

.84 

.75 

.91 

.79 

Mean (total) 

3.41 

4.61 

3.65 

3. 67 

3.34 

3.74 

Mean (A half) 

3.77 

5.33 

4. 23 

3.92 

3.62 

4. 17 

Mean (B half) 

3.06 

3.86 

3.06 

3.42 

3.07 

3. 29 

S.D. (total) 

1.40 

1. 28 

1. 60 

1.59 

1.78 

1.53 

S.D. (A half) 

1. 68 

1.31 

1.81 

1. 78 

1.91 

1. 70 

S.D. (B half) 

1. 35 

1. 60 

1. 64 

1.70 

1.77 

1.61 

N 

59 

110 

71 

50 

50 

340 

Range 

1.0-6. 1 

1. 6-7.0 

0 

1 

-3 

0 

1.0-6. 2 

1. 0-7.0 

1. 0-7.0 


^he groups taking this form are as follows: 

Group I: Extension Testing Class Women 

Group II: San Quentin Men Prisoners 

Group III: Psychiatric Clinic Women 

Group IV: Psychiatric Clinic Men 

Group V: Working Class Men and Women 

^In obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not 
weighted by N. 

c The reliabilities for Form 45 are not based on odd-even or equivalent 
halves but on E A vs. E R ; they are therefore slightly lower than they 
would be had equivalent halves been used (see text). 

17 This group was not included in the over-all sample because the proportion of students 
in the sample was already too great. This group was obtained for the primary purpose of 
making a correlational analysis of the Form 45 scales, particularly the F scale (see Chapter 
VII). 



RELIABILITY OF THE E SCALE (FORMS 45 AND 40 


THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 


*35 



e 

0) 

B 

O 

m 

» c 

o -r* ® 

i to s 

i-H u 

O <U X 3 

<m > a 

to c o 

(4 D G 

® c ® 

® C O ® G E 

U O iH C E ® O 

08 -u ► ® O E S 

&D S S 

EC® M tO 

-rt W CO M CO (0 

ox: to to 08 08 

<m to cd 08 o8 ■— I ■-< 

O) 'H h h O O 

B 5 COO i * 

*rH U I I M SD 

JS ® o ® ® c c 

4J M <H H rt -H -H 

U -rt t 3 TS M JSJ 
M O H -O T3 k< h 

C ® c8 -h -n O O 

T* O O E S Be Sc 

^«3 
08 


to •• •»! 

Q, .. h«, K, .. 

O K, i-, Kh S*. .. K, 

O ^ Sk ^ 

u 

bti Q. Q. C. Q. Q. a. 

3 3 3 3 3 3 
® O O O O O O 

J3 h. i. ). I. h. u 

HOOUOOO 
jQ 



Group XII: Los Angeles Men 

Group XIII: Los Angeles Women 



136 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 
TABLE 17 (IV) (CONT D. ) 


RELIABILITY OF THE E SCALE (FORMS 45 AND 40) a 
C. Groups Taking both Forms 45 and 40 


Property Group Over- all 



Employment Service 

Men Veterans 

Maritime School 
Men 


Form 45: 

Reliability 

.86 

.73 

.80 

Mean (total) 

4. 26 

4. 34 

4. 30 

Mean (A half) 

4. 67 

4.82 

4. 74 

Mean (B half) 

3.85 

3. 85 

3.85 

S. D. (total) 

1.60 

1.25 

1. 42 

S.D. (A half) 

1.63 

1. 40 

1. 52 

S.D. (B half) 

1. 71 

1. 36 

1. 54 

N 

51 

179 

230 

Range 

1. 1-6. 6 

1. 2-6. 6 

1. 1-6. 6 

Form 40: 

Mean (Ea) 

4.21 

5.08 

4. 64 

S.D. (E a ) 

1.75 

1.47 

1.61 

N 

55 

164 

219 

Range 

1. 0-7. 0 

1. 2-7. 0 

1. 0-7. 0 


a The total number of cases on Forms 45 and 40 is as follows: 
Form 45 Form 40 Total 
N 570 998 1568 


is reported for each group in Table 17 (IV) B. The over-all mean D. P. of 
4.87 suggests what the total E reliability also suggests: that the subjects show 
a relatively high degree of consistency in response to all items. The mean 
D. P. in four of the eight groups is over 5.0; this suggests that the distribu- 
tion of scores is bimodal, that is, that the subjects tend either to agree strongly 
or to disagree strongly (in contrast to the more common result in which 
scores cluster around the “uncertain” neutral point). The high S. D.’s and 
wide range of scores indicate the same thing. 

The group differences in average degree of ethnocentrism are of some 
interest. Among the groups taking Form 45, the three which stand clearly 
at the head of the list in terms of mean E score are the San Quentin Men 
(4.61), the Maritime School Men (4.34), and the Employment Service Men 
Veterans (4.26), these means being significantly higher than the others 
C 3-34 3 *^ 7 ) * That the San Quentin Men are so ethnocentric makes it clear 
that being in a subordinate group is not a guarantee against ethnocentrism. 
The results for the San Quentin group, and the psychological affinity be- 
tween criminality and fascism, are considered in detail in Chapter XXL 

It is unclear why, in the Veteran and Maritime School groups, the E A 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 1 37 

means should be so different in Form 40 as compared with Form 45 (Table 
i7(IV) C). Thus, for the Veterans, the E A mean drops from 4.67 to 4.21, 
while for the Maritime School it increases from 4.82 to 5.08. Although these 
differences are not statistically significant (at the 5 per cent level), they 
might, if they were both in the same direction, suggest a general systematic 
difference between the two Forms. It might he hypothesized, for example, 
that the presence of the anti-Semitic items in E B makes some people defensive 
and thus lowers the mean on the entire scale in Form 45. This hypothesis is 
opposed, however, by the facts that neither difference is significant, that in 
the Maritime School the E A mean is higher in Form 40 than in Form 45, and 
that the E A means in the other Form 40 groups (Table 17 (IV) B ) are of 
the order of magnitude as in the Form 45 groups. It would appear, in short, 
that the presence of the E B items in Form 45 produces no systematic increase 
or decrease in scores on the other items. 

The mean E score of 3.7, as well as the wide range and the large S. D., for 
the Psychiatric Clinic patients indicates that no simple relationship exists 
between psychological ill health and ethnocentrism. The degree of ethno- 
centrism in this group of neurotic and psychotic— primarily the former- 
individuals just about equals the average of all groups tested. It would appear 
incorrect, therefore, to assume that there is on the average more pathology, 
psychologically speaking, in ethnocentrists than in nonethnocentrists or 
conversely. 18 Evidence to be presented later, however (Chapter XXII), 
will show that high and low scorers differ significantly with respect to type 
of pathology. The least ethnocentric groups taking Form 45 and 40 are the 
Testing Class Women and the Working-Class Men and Women. The low 
mean for the former group is consistent with previous results on University 
groups in California and Oregon. The E A mean for the Form 45 group of 
Working-Class subjects is slightly but nonsignificantly lower than for the 
larger Working-Class group taking Form 40. This difference is apparently 
due to the fact that the Form 45 sample contains a greater proportion of sub- 
jects from the California Labor School, a subgroup with an extremely low E 
mean. Further discussion of the relation of economic class and politico-eco- 
nomic ideology to ethnocentrism is reserved for Chapter V. From the results 
in Table 17 (IV), particularly for the groups taking Form 40, it would 
appear that socioeconomic class, as such, is not a major determinant of dif- 
ferences in ethnocentrism. The means for the Middle-Class groups are 
almost identical with those for the Working-Class groups. This is not to 

18 This conclusion depends, of course, on the representatives of our sample. What 
can be stated unequivocally is that every quartile on E contains some psychologically dis- 
turbed individuals. We may suspect, however, that a truly random sample of seriously 
disturbed individuals would show a higher average degree of ethnocentrism than is shown 
by the present sample, which includes, for the most part, individuals who recognize their 
problems as primarily psychological and who are willing to undergo psychological 
treatment— personality trends associated, as later chapters will show, with lack of ethno- 
centrism. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


* 3 ® 

say that economic forces play no role in ethnocentrism, or that class member- 
ship is unimportant. However, the average amount of ethnocentrism in the 
two classes appears to be the same, to the extent that the measuring instru- 
ment is valid and the sample adequate. Moreover, there are wide variations 
within each class, some groups being very high in ethnocentrism, others very 
low. Thus, within the middle class, the service clubs are significantly more 
ethnocentric than the university groups. Individual and group differences in 
E score within each class are associated with differences in ideology (political, 
religious, and so forth) and in personality as shown by the chapters which 
follow. 

c. Item Analysis: Forms 45 and 40. The item means and D. P.’s for the 
groups taking Forms 45 and 40 are presented in Table i8(IV). While the 
item means for men average slightly higher than those for women, the rank 
orders of the individual item means and D. P.’s are similar for the two sexes. 
Furthermore, the wide range of the over-all item means and D. P.’s suggests 
that similar consistency exists among the various groups of men and women 
comprising the total sample. In other words, the relative level of acceptability 
(mean) and “goodness” (D. P.) of the items is fairly stable from group to 
group. 

The best items in Form 45 deal with Negroes, Jews, zootsuiters, and 
foreigners. For the women two items, 32 (Negroes’ own fault) and 40 (Jew- 
ish neighborhoods), had means of below 3.0 and D. P.’s ranking 10 and 9 
respectively. Even the lowest D. P. for men and for women (3.0 in each 
case) is sufficient to differentiate high from low scorers with a minimum of 
overlap. The only item in Form 45 with a mean of over 5.0 for both men 
and women is number 45 (World organization). While this item dis- 
criminates very well between low and high scorers on the total scale, the 
low scorers are apparently less sure of themselves on the issue of national 
sovereignty than on the other issues; the high scorers almost uniformly rate 
this item +3? but the low scorers are less emphatic and more divided. 

The significantly higher means for men than for women on both forms 
may not reflect a true sex difference since they are not based on comparable 
groups of men and women. Thus, the four highest men’s groups (San Quen- 
tin, Veterans, Maritime School, Service Clubs) have no high-scoring coun- 
terparts among the women. The absence of a significant sex difference is 
also suggested by the very similar means obtained by comparable sex groups 
(see Table 17 (IV) B): Working-Class, Middle-Class, and Los Angeles 
Men and Women. Significant differences between comparable groups of 
men and women might, of course, be found on various individual items; this 
problem has not been systematically explored. 

The differences in means and D. P.’s between Forms 45 and 40 may also 
be less significant than they appear at first glance. That the mean D. P. 
is almost one point higher for both sexes on Form 40 than on Form 45 is 



MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS OF THE E-SCALE ITEMS (FORMS 45 AND 40) 


THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 


J 39 




04 

















Tt* 


















| 

0 


in 



X— > 

a 



y—s 


„ — .. 






^4 S 



♦H 

J0^ 


W 



03 




v-H 

in 

CO 






CO 



X 






CO 



"w 

'w 

>w 







■Vw' 



0 



II 




g 














>> 

t— t 

3 



II 

co 













-»-> 

CO 


bfl Z 



2 

cd 













e 

a 

II 

U 

w 
















0 ) 



O 

















E 


Z G 

3 

c 


05 

O 

• 

s 

v-H 

03 

in 






C- 

CO 

>> 

m 

w 03 

O 

3 


03 

rp 

04 


CO 

rji 

f-H 






0 

CO 

O 

y — 4 

E 


E 


m 














H 

CO 

G 


O 



£ 

Q 


If 

in 


m 






in 

Tf< 

a 

CO 

03 3 

, 

r* 


ii 

Si 
















£ Ii 

V— 4 




o 















II 

3 

OS 

CO 


Z 

U- 

c 


00 

CD 

in 

CD 






co 

CO 


CO & 

in 

CO 




cd 



03 

CO 

CO 






in 

CO 


z 

3 


3 




Q3 













9 


»— C CO 

II 

r— * 


ft 


s 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 







CO 



3 -t-> 

0 















O 

G 

bD O 

z 

1 


O , 















03 

G 3 


3 


5 














*— < 

£ 

< — 1 


pH 


o 


04 















XI 

G 

•3 

















II 

X) 

(0 3 

3 

•3 


o 

,4-^4 

a 


/-S 




4-V 

m 




in 


3 

0 CO 

E 

■H 


w 

o 



-d< 

t-H 

in 

CO 

CD 

0 

CO 

03 



z 

*— < 

X 

£ 

£ 


CO 

dd 







t- 




t- 



U 

O 




v-H 

c 








"■ — r 







in 





ii 

ra 













CO 

03 

0 

CO 



E£J 

2 

os 













u 

O 

^ 3 

CO 



y 














03 


4-4 CO 

3 

•— c 


Q 














G 

> 

CO 3 

«—( 

It- 



m 

• 


m 

t-H 

03 

s 

CO 

0 

03 

rf 

CO 

0 

03 

O 

*-» 

X 

O 




rt< 

04 


0 

03 

03 

CO 

m 

03 

CO 

CO 

m 

CO 

CO 

03 

II -p 


II 







* 


0 



« 




-pH 

«3 

b£ 



S 

a 




CO 

rt< 

CO 

CO 

CO 

rj< 

CO 

co 

CO 

U 


Z <M 

G 

z 



Si 














a. 

o3 

w O 

•H 

•W 



o 

















-M 




U 4 

G 


rfi 

CO 

CD 

O 

CO 

rt* 

CO 


CO 

CD 

CO 

G 

G 

G TT 

CO 

G 




cd 


CD 

03 

CO 

O 

■O 4 

CO 

rt< 

03 

i-H 

in 

0) 

*-» 

3 m 

3 

3 




CU 


• 

* 

* 



, 


* 


• 


s 

O 

£ 

H 

E 




S 


CO 

CO 

CO 

ri* 

CO 

CO 

CO 

co 

CO 

m 

CO 



3 


O 
















a 

•H 

CO C3 

G 

St 

















rH 

co c 

O 

















-t-> 

cd 

Cd *r4 


0 




04 













G 

O 

n co 

co 


















0) 


U 

G 

C 




Q 













3 


. 3 

3 

•H 



03 



in 

CO 

CO 

f-H 






"d* 


Of 

9 

60 t- 

-*-> 

H 



CM 

X 



>w' 


W 










C 3 

X 

u 



in 

g 













a 

M 

Hi X 

Cd 




ii 

CO 













as 

Tf< ^d 


O 



2 

cd 













CO 

CO 

ii T3 




















O 3 

, , 

U 

















II 

a: T3 

G 

-4-> 

0 


O 

• 


CO 

CO 

rf< 

CO 






CO 

03 


3 

3 

3 

CO 

03 

rr 

04 


CO 

03 

r* 

03 






CO 

in 

G 

z 

rH 

F 

•pH 

4-4 

CO 




• 


s 







m 


03 


. 0 

O 

X 


03 

E 

Q 













s 


c 

& 

0 

II 


H 















c 

03 -P 


>> 


II 

O 















0) 

CO 


CO 

z 


|X4 

g 


0 

in 

rj< 

tr- 






t- 

8 

0 

£ 

O 

0 

a 

- ' 

2 


cd 


4-1 

CO 

CO 

O 






03 



II 




^ — ■ 


03 


* 




* 






9 

CO 

pH 

rH 

CO 


G 

cd 


S 




CO 







rjl 


Q, 

O 

Z 3 

a 

• 

3 














3 

O 


3 


B 

M 














O 

•G 

3 

0 


O 

& 


• 












ii 

t) 

G ii 

u 

n » 


O4 













bO 

C/2 

3 3 

bD 

«— 1 


§ 


Q 



___ 






t 


4-v 


bO 

03 

£ £* 

bD 

11 

CO 

3 

O 

o 



t— 

4-1 

03 

CO 

Xjl 

co 

in 

CO 

CD 

0 

1 * 


G 

B 

(0 41 

c 

f—i 

M 

rji 

,*v* 














*H 

CO 0 

Hi 

z 

3 















* 

4-> 

3 m 

» 


bD 

1 

£ 

os 













O 

H 

rH 

*rH 

U 

a) 

O || 

9 

0 

rl 

CO 

-M 


S 













Tt* 

0 

£ 

3 Z 

0 

c 

CO 


m 



t- 

00 

rji 

rji 

Tf 

03 

co 

in 

» — < 

H 

<M 



IM 

3 

O 


Tt< 

04* 


m 

in 

CO 

m 

0 

rfi 

CO 

co 

t- 

0 

CO 



•3 


T) 

X 
















03 


•3 G 

3 

3 



£ 

Q 


CO 

TJ< 

CO 

• 0 3 


co 

CO 


eo 

CO 

CO 

X 

y-V 

•44 3 

X 

-M 



c 













+-> 

CO £ E 

4J 

00 

0 


£ 

g 


rji 

t'* 

t — 1 

CO 

4-1 

in 

0 

co 

in 

rp 

Tt< 

B 

O 

£ 

E 

G 

« 



cd 


4-1 

m 

CO 

CO 

*— 1 

co 

4-1 

0 

m 

in 

0 

O 



O 

3 

m 



03 













it 

II 

41 -3 

Ii 

E 




£ 



rji 

CO 

rt< 

Tj< 

CO 

CO 

rf5 

co 

m 


<M 


0 c 


O 

M 
















Z 

in 3 


dt 















T3 



•3 


z 















03 


11 c 

3 

>1 

w 








y— s 




^ — . 



G 

CO 

3 

G 

4-> 









G 








c 

Z £ 

■r4 

•H 

G 






CO 

G 

03 


, 


o3 


O 

cd 

cd 


3 

CO 

3 




^ . 

CO 

cd 

03 

s 

, — 

Q3 


X 


e 

4J 

u* 

CO 

4-> 

I-* 

B 




CO 

+3 

03 

e 

CO 

s 

> 

z — . 

bD 


03 

X 

03 

C CO 

X 

3 

O 




Ch 

x 

TO 

03 

CO 

03 

iH 

03 

•H 

• 

-P 

0 

-M 

3 ai 

O 

> 

sc 





03 

b D 

•H 

l-t 

03 

>-3 

1 — 1 

-id 

03 

bo 

•H 


03 

£ *— 1 






£ 


+3 

•H 


O 

G 

cd 


•H 

2 

Ih 


03 

> 

O 

3 

G 

CO 



03 


iH 

Si 

G 

<W 

•iH 

CO 

1 — C 


0 

w 

Ii 


O ■ 

ii 

3 

CO 



+■> 


3 


bD 


CO 


03 

cd 

X 


03 

0) 

G 

60 

3 


cd 



SH 


CO 

0 

iH 

O 

3 

>3 

O 


CO 

T3 

a 

i* 

03 

C G 

* 

C 

f—i 




+3 

Si 

03 

Si 

X2 

Si 

u 

CO 

•4H 

4—1 



£ 

•H »rH 


O 

u 




0 

bD 

E-. 

bD 


>1 

bD 

5 


G 

S 

cd 


rl ^d 

ai 

4-> 

1 




3 

03 

O 

03 


cd 

03 

03 

03 

O 

Cd 

-u 

03 

U Ii 

-M 

bD 

60 




2 

&4 

2 

*-J 

a 

2 

>3 

*2, 

& 

03 

cd 

O 

0 

3 

G 

c 







'w- 




' 



s 

T3 

vH 

0 s 

•3 

•H 

♦H 
















> 

iH 


X 

dd 
















03 

Ut 

ii 3 

3 

CO 

l-i 







0 

* 



# 

, 

m 

* 


X 

03 

4-> X 

X 

cd 

0 



O 


in 

0 

m 

8 

Tf 

CO 

CO 

CO 

0 

m 


Eh 

CO 

3 H 

H 

» 

St 



2 




rH 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

TP 



G 



X 




c In obtaining the over-all means and D,P.*s, the individual group values were not weighted by N, 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


14O 

due in part to the smaller number of items in Form 40 (each item therefore 
contributing a larger portion of the total score). It is also partly due to 
sampling factors: the composition of the various samples taking Form 40 
was more heterogeneous, resulting in larger S. D.’s (Table 17 (IV)), more 
extreme scorers, and thus higher D. P.’s. Both men and women had slightly 
lower E a means on Form 40 than on Form 45 (4.48-4.20 for men, 4.00-3.83 
for women). For reasons discussed earlier, these differences in means may 
be attributed mainly to sampling differences (both systematic and random) 
rather than to the nature of the forms themselves. 

d. Correlational Analysis: Form 45. It was possible, using the group 
of 517 University of California student women mentioned above, to make 
a correlational analysis of the E scale (Form 45). 19 Only the highlights of 
these results need be presented here. The group was near the average of the 
total sample with respect to mean (3.64), S. D. (1.52), and reliability (.79 
for E a vs. Eb, .87 for odd vs. even halves). For the single items the means 
ranged from 2.25 for Item 32 (Negroes’ own fault) to 5.00 for Item 45 
(World organization), while the S. D.’s ranged from 1.77 for Item 32 to 
2.47 for Item 28 (Marry a Jew). The average of the interitem correlations 
was .42. The lowest interitem r’s, .25 and .26, were between Item 15 (Foreign 
ideas) and Items 40 (Jewish neighborhoods) and 32 (Negroes’ own fault), 
respectively. The highest r’s, .61 and .62, were between Items 24 (Jewish 
businessmen) and 36 (Jews alike), and between Items 10 (Negro rights) 
and 20 (Negro foremen), respectively. The correlations between each item 
and the sum of the remaining items averaged .59; the two lowest values, 
.43 and .46, were for Items 15 and 45, the two highest, .67 and .69, for Items 
10 and 36. Six of the ten items correlated .60 or higher with the sum of the 
remaining ones. These results, including the rank order of goodness of items 
and the general level of magnitude of the correlations, are consistent with 
the results for the other groups. While there is a tendency for items refer- 
ring to a given group to cluster somewhat, the predominant trend is toward 
broad internal consistency. That the consistency is incomplete is shown by 
the fact that the correlations are far from perfect. In terms of statistical rigor, 
the scale shows about the same degree of uni dimensionality (consistency) 
as the standard intelligence tests. 

e. Age and Ethnocentrism. The total sample from which the above data 
were obtained was not randomly distributed with respect to age. Its mem- 
bers were predominantly in their twenties and thirties, a disproportion- 
ately small number being in their forties or older. It was hypothesized that 
younger people tend to be less conservative and less ethnocentric than their 
elders, and that the mean E scores for the present sample might consequently 

19 We wish to express our thanks to the Social Science Research Council for the funds 
which made this aspect of the research possible. 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 141 

be lower than for the population at large. As a partial check on this hypoth- 
esis, correlations between age and E score (Form 45) were computed for 
the Psychiatric Clinic Men and Women (N = 12 1). This group, despite its 
atypicality with respect to psychological health, appeared to be the most 
diverse group taking Form 45, and its E-scale results (mean, reliability, in- 
ternal consistency, and correlations with other scales) were fairly representa- 
tive of the total sample. Approximately 80 per cent of this group was between 
18 and 40 years old, the mean (and median) being 34 years. The figures for 
men were very similar to those for women. 

The correlation between age and E score for both men and women was 
.19. This value for men and women combined is significantly above zero at 
the 5 per cent (lowest acceptable) level of confidence. It suggests that there 
is a slight but consistent tendency for younger adults to be less ethnocentric 
than those of middle or old age. That the correlation is not likely to be 
higher for the general population is indicated by the fact that very high 
E-scale means were made by such young adult groups as the Employment 
Service Veterans and the Maritime School Men. The sampling bias in favor 
of younger age levels appears, then, to be of minor importance in our final 
results: the average degree of ethnocentrism found is slightly but significantly 
lower than would be found in a more representative sample. 

3. A SUGGESTED FINAL E SCALE 

The above data indicate that even the brief ten-item E scale in Form 
45 can be used as a dependable measure of ethnocentrism. Whenever pos- 
sible, however, it would appear advantageous to use a longer form which is 
likely to be more reliable and which can cover in a more systematic fashion 
various aspects of ethnocentric ideology. Table 19 (IV) contains a suggested 
final E scale of 20 items— short enough to meet most demands of practicality, 
yet sufficiently long to meet theoretical and statistical requirements. These 
items were selected, on the basis of both statistical adequacy and theoretical 
significance, from previous forms of the Ethnocentrism and Anti-Semitism 
scales. The wording of several items has been shortened and simplified. Sub- 
scales have been reinstated: six items dealing with Jews, six with Negroes, and 
eight with other Minorities and Patriotism. 

In some cases the demands of time or administrative expediency may re- 
quire that the scale be shortened or that certain items be deleted. From the 
experience of the present research it would appear that such changes can 
be made without seriously damaging the effectiveness of the scale in pro- 
viding an adequate index of ethnocentrism. From a broader point of view, 
however, it is desirable to have further data on the internal structure of 
ethnocentric ideology, as revealed by the total scale, and on the social and 
psychological structures with which this ideology is associated. 



I 4 2 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE 19 (IV) 

Ethnocentrism Scale: Suggested Final Form 

A. Jews 

1. One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and prevent 
other people from having a fair chance in competition. 

2. I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew. 

3. There may be a few exceptions, but in general Jews are pretty much alike. 

4. The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they gradually 
give it a typical Jewish atmosphere. 

5. To end prejudice against Jews, the first step is for the Jews to try sincerely 
to get rid of their harmful and irritating faults. 

6. There is something different and strange about Jews; it’s hard to tell what 
they are thinking and planning, and what makes them tick. 

B. Negroes 

1. Negroes have their rights, but it is best to keep them in their own districts 
and schools and to prevent too much contact with whites. 

2. It would be a mistake ever to have Negroes for foremen and leaders over 
whites. 

3. Negro musicians may sometimes be as good as white musicians, but it is a 
mistake to have mixed Negro-white bands. 

4. Manual labor and unskilled jobs seem to fit the Negro mentality and ability 
better than more skilled or responsible work. 

5. The people who raise all the talk about putting Negroes on the same level 
as whites are mostly radical agitators trying to stir up conflicts. 

6. Most Negroes would become overbearing and disagreeable if not kept in then- 
place. 

C. Other Minorities and Patriotism 

1. Zootsuiters prove that when people of their type have too much money and 
freedom, they just take advantage and cause trouble. 

2. The worst danger to real Americanism during the last 50 years has come from 
foreign ideas and agitators. 

3. Now that a new world organization is set up, America must be sure that she 
loses none of her independence and complete power as a sovereign nation. 

4. Certain religious sects who refuse to salute the flag should be forced to con- 
form to such a patriotic action, or else be abolished. 

5. Filipinos are all right in their place, but they carry it too far when they dress 
lavishly and go around with white girls. 

6. America may not be perfect, but the American Way has brought us about as 
close as human beings can get to a perfect society. 

7. It is only natural and right for each person to think that his family is better 
than any other. 

8. The best guarantee of our national security is for America to have the biggest 
army and navy in the world and the secret of the atom bomb. 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 


143 


E. VALIDATION BY CASE STUDIES: THE RESPONSES OF MACK 
AND LARRY ON THE E SCALE 

In order to throw some light upon the validity of the E scale, we may 
compare the responses of Mack and Larry on the scale with their ideas about 
groups and group relations as brought out by the interview. The scores of 
these two subjects for each of the items of the E scale (Form 78), together 
with the group means and D. P.’s, are shown in Table 20 (IV). 

TABLE 20 (IV) 

RESPONSES OF MACK AND LARRY ON THE E SCALE 


No. 

Item 

Mack 

Larry 

Group a 

Mean 

Group a 

D.P. 

4. 

(Discrimination illegal) 

5 

1 

3.95 

1.51 

7. 

(Zootsuiters) 

6 

1 

3.38 

4.02 

18. 

(Foreign ideas) 

5 

1 

3. 17 

3.26 

25. 

(World organization) 

7 

7 

y 

4. 60 

3. 28 

29. 

(Negroes have rights) 

6 

3.41 

4.00 

34. 

(Feminine positions) 

3 

li 

2.74 

2. 18 

37. 

(Negroes lazy) 

5 

[t 

1. 92 

2. 16 

41. 

(American way) 

5 

2 

4.34 

3.05 

45. 

(Negro foremen) 

6 

li 

4.09 

3.48 

48. 

(Germans and Japs) 

6 

1 

2. 50 

3.08 

51. 

(Remove corrupt people) 

5 

1 

3. 15 

2. 34 

54. 

(Population incapable) 

3 

5 

3. 79 

2. 66 

57. 

(Radicals pro-Negro) 

6 

1 

2. 60 

2.86 

64. 

(No Japs in California) 

6 

1 

2. 24 

2. 69 


Over- all mean 

5.3 

1.8 

3. 29 

2.90 

a The 

group means and D.P.'s are 

based on all 

four groups taking 

Form 78. 


In the analysis of Mack’s interview, in Chapter II, it was shown that he 
exhibited in a clear-cut fashion all of the trends which, according to the 
present theory, are most characteristic of ethno centrism. That he should 
score near the top of the high quartile on the E scale may therefore be taken 
as evidence of its validity. He agrees with 12 of the 14 scale items, thus 
presenting a picture of very general ethnocentrism. His idealization of the 
ingroup is as marked as his hostility toward outgroups. His rejection of 
Negroes, zootsuiters, and Japanese is particularly pronounced, and decidedly 
more extreme than his rejection of Jews. (His mean score on the five items 
pertaining to the former minority groups is 5.8 as compared with his mean 
score of 4.6 on the A-S scale.) It may be recalled that Mack’s ideology con- 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


144 

cerning Jews has a somewhat special quality. He wishes to make the point 
that Jews ought to participate more fully in American life and that they 
would be accepted and liked were it not for the fact that they would rather 
stay apart. In order to make this point, it is necessary for him to disagree with 
statements pertaining to the exclusion of Jews, and this lowers his mean 
score. It seems that he is impressed by what he conceives to be Jewish power. 
The interview, unfortunately, concentrating as it did upon anti-Semitism, did 
not explore Mack’s imagery of other minority groups. It is fairly safe to 
assume, however, that he considers Negroes, zootsuiters, and Japanese 
weaker and more submerged than the Jews, and hence more suitable objects 
of hostility; certainly his scale responses express strong opposition to the 
idea of these groups participating more fully in American life. 

Mack’s failure to agree with Item 34 (Feminine positions) may have to 
do with the fact that he is engaged to be married to a school teacher; this is a 
matter that will be discussed more fully later on. The other item with which 
he disagrees, and the one on which he scores below the group mean is 54 
(Population incapable); some light may be shed upon this inconsistency by 
considering that Item 54 is an unusually strong statement, one that includes 
no pseudodemocratic rationalization, and that Mack in his interview does 
not make extremely aggressive statements. It will be seen later that on other 
scales also he fails to agree with the more openly aggressive antidemocratic 
statements, a fact that is considered to be in keeping with the general picture 
of him as a potential follower rather than a potential leader in a fascist 
movement. 

Larry’s mean E-scale score of 1.8 is extremely low. This is consistent with 
the fact that in the interview he makes every effort to place himself squarely 
on the side of democratic internationalism and social equality for minorities. 
He disagrees strongly with 12 of the 14 scale items, his total score being 
raised by agreement with Items 25 (World organization) and 54 (Popula- 
tion incapable). Although the group mean for item 25 is high, indicating 
that strong sentiment in favor of national sovereignty is probably character- 
istic of the country as a whole, the item nevertheless discriminates very sig- 
nificantly between high and low scorers on the total scale. That Larry should 
agree strongly with the item may be due, not to concern with power as 
seemed to be the case with Mack, but to his conservatism and to his linking 
world organization with Roosevelt’s economic policies, which he generally 
opposes. This interpretation is supported by the interview material, as will 
be shown later. 

It is interesting that both subjects show inconsistency in the case of Item 
54. Although this statement was intended to be strongly ethnocentric, the 
prejudiced subject disagrees with it while the unprejudiced subject agrees. 
This is in keeping with the fact that the rtem has one of the lowest D. P.’s 
of any in the scale. The reason might well be that some low scorers interpret 
the statement not in a cynical, antihuman way, imputing the incapability to 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 


H5 

outgroups (the high scorers show clearly, in their responses to other E 
items, who they think are the incapable people), but rather in the sense 
that there are too many people in all groups who have not, because of social 
conditions, developed sufficiently. This explanation probably holds for Larry. 

F. CONCLUSIONS: THE STRUCTURE OF ETHNOCENTRIC 

IDEOLOGY 

On the basis of the various scale results presented above and of supporting 
evidence from interviews, we can now attempt to formulate a more detailed 
theory of ethnocentric ideology. Such a theory should indicate the generality 
of the ethnocentric frame of mind, should permit various patterns of sur- 
face opinions and attitudes to be viewed as alternative expressions of the 
same underlying point of view, and should show how the ethnocentric ap- 
proach to groups and group relations differs from other approaches. 

A word may first be said regarding the implications of the data presented 
above for such a theory. To what extent can ethnocentrism be considered a 
consistent, organized system of ideas? From the scale statistics the following 
points can be made. On an item-by-item basis most people are not entirely 
consistent in their agreement or disagreement with ethnocentric ideas. This 
is indicated by the correlations, about .4 on the average, between individual 
items. Also, inspection of the scale responses of individuals in the high and 
low quartiles shows that even extreme scorers vary somewhat around a 
generally ethnocentric or anti-ethnocentric position. Thus, to know that a 
person is ethnocentric in terms of total E-scale score permits only fair pre- 
diction of his stand on any single item in the scale (correlations between 
single items and total E scale averaging about .6). 

On the other hand, there is much greater consistency on a subscale-by- 
subscale basis. The high reliability of the initial E scale and of its relatively 
short subscales indicates that, whatever the item-by-item fluctuation, each 
subscale measures a rather consistent trend. Furthermore, the correlations 
among the initial Negro, Minorities, Patriotism, and Anti-Semitism scales 
indicate that these trends are closely related, that people are notably con- 
sistent in their acceptance or rejection of general ethnocentrism. To attempt 
to measure this ideology as a totality, however, is not to deny that it has 
components with respect to which individuals may vary. Indeed, the assump- 
tion that each trend is complex underlies the formulation of subscales and 
the attempt to make each subscale as complex and inclusive as possible. 

A person is considered ethnocentric when his total score (average agree- 
ment with items) is high enough to indicate that he has accepted most of the 
ideas expressed in the scale. Whenever in the text a reference is made to 
“generality” or “consistency,” it is always on a subscale or scale basis and 
with a recognition of item-by-item variability. And whenever there is a 
reference to any specific idea in ethnocentric ideology it is understood that 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


146 

most, though usually not all, ethnocentrists have this idea; that is to say, 
each facet of ethnocentric ideology as here conceived is accepted by most 
high scorers , rejected by most love scorers . 20 Ethnocentric ideology is held 
in its entirety by only the most extreme high scorers on the E scale. The less 
extreme members of the high quartile have accepted most, though not all, 
of the ethnocentric ideas described below. It would be erroneous, then, to 
regard high scorers as “all alike”; they have in common a general way of 
thinking about groups, but there are wide individual differences in the im- 
agery and attitudes regarding various groups. Similar reasoning applies to 
the low scorers . 21 

We may now return to a consideration of the preliminary definition of 
ethnocentrism as an ideology concerning ingroups and outgroups and their 
interaction. 

The term “group” is used in the widest sense to mean any set of people 
who constitute a psychological entity for any individual. If we regard the 
individual’s conception of the social world as a sort of map containing various 
differentiated regions, then each region can be considered a group. This 
sociopsychological definition includes sociological groups such as nations, 
classes, ethnic groups, political parties, and so on. But it also includes numbers- 
of-people who have one or more common characteristics but who are not 
formal groups in the sense of showing organization and regulation of ways. 
Thus, it is legitimate in a sociopsychological sense to consider as groups such 
sets of people as criminals, intellectuals, artists, politicians, eccentrics, and so 
on. Psychologically, they are groups in so far as they are social categories or 
regions in an individual’s social outlook— objects of opinions, attitudes, affect, 
and striving. 

“Ingroup” and “outgroup” are sociopsychological rather than purely 
sociological concepts, since they refer to identification and, so to speak, 
contraidentification, rather than to formal membership in the group. A per- 
son may be identified with groups to which he does not formally belong. 
This is exemplified by the type of socially upward mobile person who is 
identified with groups of higher status and power (class, profession, political 
faction) than those to which he now belongs; also by the person with moti- 
vated downward mobility 22 who identifies with lower status and power 
groups such as Negroes, Jews, “the proletariat,” “the weak and suffering.” 

20 The difference between high and low scorers is shown statistically for each item by 
the Discriminatory Power and the item-total scale correlations; for the subscales it is 
shown by the subscale-subscale and the subscale-total scale correlations. 

21 Various patterns of “high” and “low” ideology, as found in the interview material, 
will be considered later, in Chapter XIX. 

22 The word “motivated” is used to distinguish this type of downward mobility— which 
is psychologically desired and sought— from a loss of status which is externally imposed by 
depression or economic failure (and in which the individual usually remains identified with 
the higher status group). Similarly, a person may want to rise in economic status primarily 
because of the desire for comfort, leisure, and so on; this is psychologically different from 
that upward mobility in which the desire for status and power, and identification with 
powerful groups, are primary motivating forces. 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 1 47 

An individual may, of course, be concerned with many groups which are 
neither ingroups nor outgroups for him. One may feel sympathetic towards 
Negroes or the Catholic Church without actually identifying with them. 
Conversely, one may be opposed to many groups in the sense of feeling a 
difference in interest or values, or merely of feeling that their aims and 
existence are irrelevant to him; but these are not outgroups if there is not 
the sense of contraidentification, of basic conflict, of mutual exclusiveness, 
of violation of primary values. 

A primary characteristic of ethnocentric ideology is the generality of 
outgroup rejection. It is as if the ethnocentric individual feels threatened by 
most of the groups to which he does not have a sense of belonging; if he 
cannot identify, he must oppose; if a group is not “acceptable,” it is “alien.” 
The ingroup-outgroup distinction thus becomes the basis for most of his 
social thinking, and people are categorized primarily according to the 
groups to which they belong. The outgroups are usually entirely subordinate 
(Negroes, Mexicans), or groups with relatively low status and power who 
are struggling to better their position in society. The major outgroups in 
America today appear to be Jews, Negroes, the lower socioeconomic class, 
labor unions, and political radicals, especially Communists. Other groups 
whose outgroup status varies somewhat are Catholics, artists, intellectuals; 
Oklahomans and Japanese (in the West); pacifists, Filipinos, Mexicans, homo- 
sexuals. Most other nations, especially the industrially backward, the social- 
istic, and those most different from the “Anglo-Saxon,” tend to be considered 
outgroups. While there are probably considerable sectional, class, and indi- 
vidual differences regarding which groups are regarded as outgroups, it 
would appear that an individual who regards a few of these groups as out- 
groups will tend to reject most of them. An ethnocentric individual may 
have a particular dislike for one group, but he is likely nonetheless to have 
ethnocentric opinions and attitudes regarding many other groups. 

Another general characteristic of ethnocentric ideology is the shifting of 
the outgroup among various levels of social organization. Once the social 
context for discussion has been set, ethnocentrists are likely to find an 
outgroup-ingroup distinction. Thus, in a context of international relations 
ethnocentrism takes the form of pseudopatriotism; “we” are the best people 
and the best country in the world, and we should either keep out of world 
affairs altogether (isolationism) or we should participate— but without losing 
our full sovereignty, power, and economic advantage (imperialism). And 
in either case we should have the biggest army and navy in the world, and 
atom bomb monopoly. 

However, the superior American “we” breaks down when the context 
shifts to intranational affairs. In a religious context the ingroup-outgroup 
distinction may shift in various ways: religious-nonreligious, Christian- 
Jewish, Protestant-Catholic, among Protestant sects. Similar outgroup- 
ingroup distinctions can be found in various other phases of American life. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


148 

It seems, then, that the individual who has a pseudopatriotic conception of 
America in relation to other nations actually regards most of America as an 
outgroup: various religions, non-whites, “the masses,” too-educated people 
and too-uneducated people, criminals, radicals, and so on, tend largely to 
fall in the outgroup category. This is not to say that nonethno centrists 
regard all these groups as ingroups; rather, the nonethnocentrist can take a 
supportive attitude without necessarily identifying, and he can be critical 
without a sense of alien-ness and of categorical difference. 

The social world as most ethnocentrists see it is arranged like a series of 
concentric circles around a bull’s-eye. Each circle represents an ingroup- 
outgroup distinction; each line serves as a barrier to exclude all outside 
groups from the center, and each group is in turn excluded by a slightly 
narrower one. A sample “map” illustrating the ever-narrowing ingroup 
would be the following: Whites, Americans, native-born Americans, Chris- 
tians, Protestants, Californians, my family, and finally— I. 

The ethnocentric “need for an outgroup” prevents that identification 
with humanity as a whole which is found in anti-ethnocentrism. (This lack 
in identification is related to the ethnocentrists’ inability to approach indi- 
viduals as individuals, and to their tendency to see and “prejudge” each 
individual only as a sample specimen of the reified group. Their experience 
of interpersonal relations involves, so to speak, the same stereotypy as their 
opinions regarding groups generally.) The inability to identify with human- 
ity takes the political form of nationalism and cynicism about world govern- 
ment and permanent peace. It takes other forms, all based on ideas concerning 
the intrinsic evil (aggressiveness, laziness, power-seeking, etc.) of human 
nature; the idea that this evil is unchangeable is rationalized by pseudo- 
scientific hereditarian theories of human nature. The evil, since it is un- 
changeable, must be attacked, stamped out, or segregated wherever it is 
found, lest it contaminate the good. The democratic alternative— humani- 
tarianism— is not a vague and abstract “love for everybody” but the ability 
to like and dislike, to value and oppose, individuals on the basis of concrete 
specific experience; it necessarily involves the elimination of the stereotypical 
ingroup-outgroup distinction and all that goes with it. 

What is the content of ethnocentric ideology regarding outgroups? There 
are, of course, individual differences here, and the same individual has dif- 
ferent conceptions of, and attitudes toward, different outgroups. Neverthe- 
less, certain common trends seem to exist, and these are generally the same 
as those found in anti-Semitic ideology. Most essentially, outgroups are seen 
as threatening and power-seeking. Accusations against them tend to be 
moralistic and, often, mutually contradictory. One of the main characteris- 
tics of most outgroups is that they are objectively weaker than the groups 
whom they supposedly threaten. Sometimes this weakness is perceived by 
the ethno centrist, but this does not seem to lessen his sense of being threat- 
ened. The conflict as he sees it is between an ingroup trying to maintain or 



THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 


149 

recapture its justly superior position, and an outgroup, resentful of past 
hurts, trying to do to others what they have done to it. But the conflict is 
seen as permanent and unresolvable; the only alternatives are dominance and 
submission; justice requires dominance by the superior ingroup, and the 
subordinate group will always remain resentful and rebellious. Because he 
considers hierarchy and power conflict “natural” he has difficulty in grasping 
a conception of group relations in which power considerations are largely 
eliminated and in which no group can control the lives of other groups. 

The moralistic accusations against outgroups are similar to those that were 
seen in the case of anti-Semitism; again we find stereotypy, an absence of 
theories— save simple hereditarian ones— to explain why groups are as they are, 
and a readiness to place all the blame for group conflict upon outgroups. 

The general outlook just described must, it would seem, have to do pri- 
marily with psychological trends within the ethnocentrist rather than with 
the actual characteristics of the outgroups. For one thing, many people who 
have had bad experiences with members of minority groups— and most of 
us have had unhappy experiences with members of most groups including 
ingroups— or who have heard derogatory remarks about these groups, do 
not have ethnocentric imagery and attitudes. It is not the experience as such 
that counts, but the way in which it is assimilated psychologically. Also, the 
prejudiced individual is prepared to reject groups with which Jie has never 
had contact; his approach to a new and strange person or culture is not one 
of curiosity, interest, and receptivity but rather one of doubt and rejection. 
The feeling of difference is transformed into a sense of threat and an attitude 
of hostility. The new group easily becomes an outgroup. The stereotypy, 
the illogicality, the large number of outgroups, the consistency of outgroup 
imagery— all these point to things in the psychological functioning of ethno- 
centrists which differentiate them from anti-ethnocentrists. 

Ethnocentric ideology regarding ingroups shows similar trends, though 
often in an opposite direction, to that regarding outgroups. The ingroups 
are conceived of as superior in morality, ability, and general development; 
they ought also to be superior in power and status, and when their status is 
lowered or threatened the ethnocentrist tends to feel persecuted and victim- 
ized. Attempts by subordinate groups to improve their status are regarded 
as threats; he cannot imagine that they are struggling for equality and mutual 
interaction because he does not think in these terms. The ingroup is idealized 
and blindly submitted to. Obedience and loyalty are the first requirements 
of the ingroup member. What is called power-seeking and clannishness in 
the outgroup is transformed into moral righteousness, self-defense, and 
loyalty in the ingroup. In all other respects the ingroup is regarded as the 
opposite of the outgroup: clean, unaggressive, hard-working and ambitious, 
honest, disciplined, well-mannered. The same values, then, are applied to 
both ingroups and outgroups, and in the same stereotyped way. 

The interaction of ingroups and outgroups, and indeed all social inter- 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


I 5 0 

action, is conceived in hierarchical and authoritarian terms. Groups as well 
as individuals must “find their level,” and the greatest danger is that certain 
groups will attempt to rise above their natural position. The same concep- 
tions are applied to ingroup structure and functioning. As in the army, 
there should be a series of levels, and individuals on a given level should 
submit to those above and dominate those below. The conception of the 
ideal family situation for the child is similar: uncritical obedience to the 
father and elders, pressures directed unilaterally from above to below, inhi- 
bition of spontaneity and emphasis on conformity to externally imposed 
values. 

We can now consider the ethnocentric solution to problems of group 
conflict. The ingroup must be kept pure and strong. The only methods of 
doing this are to liquidate the outgroups altogether, to keep them entirely 
subordinate , or to segregate them in such a way as to minimize contact with 
the ingroups. The first method represents politicalized ethnocentrism— 
fascism and the dissolution of democratic values. This method so obviously 
violates traditional American values of nonviolence, fairness, and equal op- 
portunity that it has found relatively little support in this country. The 
second and third methods are supported, however, by large numbers of 
ordinary citizens. 

Attitudes that the main outgroups should be subordinated and segregated 
are characteristic of American ethnocentrism because, it would seem, they 
combine so well ethnocentric imagery and sense of threat on the one hand, 
and certain democratic values which still prevail even in ethnocentrists, on 
the other. The democratic values often prevent more drastic action, but they 
may also serve to permit discrimination and oppression behind a pseudo- 
democratic front. 

From these considerations the following general statement emerges. 
Ethnocentrism is based on a pervasive and rigid ingroup-outgroup distinc- 
tion; it involves stereotyped negative imagery and hostile attitudes regarding 
outgroups , stereotyped positive imagery and submissive attitudes regarding 
ingroups , and a hierarchical , authoritarian view of group interaction in which 
ingroups are rightly dominant, outgroups subordinate . 



CHAPTER V 


POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP 
MEMBERSHIPS IN RELATION TO ETHNOCENTRISM 

'Daniel J. Levinson 


A. INTRODUCTION 

That political and economic forces play a vital role in the development of 
ethnocentrism, in both its institutional and individual psychological forms, 
is no longer questioned by social scientists or even by most laymen. In mod- 
ern industrial societies ethnocentric ideology has been utilized by a great 
variety of sociopolitical movements which can be broadly characterized as 
fascist, prefascist, reactionary, imperialistic, chauvinistic. It is not within 
the scope of the present research to investigate directly the social movements 
and structures-— monopoly, the concentration of power and wealth, labor 
unions, changing government functions, the declining middle class, and so 
on— which are crucial for the elimination of ethnocentrism or for its further 
development in such forms as war and rigid socioeconomic stratification. 
We are concerned, however, with the ideologies of these social groupings, 
with the organization of ideologies in the individual, and with some of the 
factors responsible for these broad ideological patterns. 1 

What patterns of politico-economic ideology are^related to ethnocentric 
and anti-ethnocentric “group relations” ideology?/ There is good reason to 
believe that the “right-left” dimension politically ‘is correlated with ethno- 
centrism. Fascism, which represents the most extreme right-wing political 
and economic structure and ideology, is also the most virulent antidemocratic 
form of ethnocentrism. The emphasis in ethnocentrism on a static, rigid 
stratification of groups finds its politico-economic analogue in the fascist 

1 Since the term “ideology” has acquired many negative connotations, particularly in the 
realm of political thought, we wish again to emphasize that this concept is used here in a 
purely descriptive sense: “ideology” refers to an “organized system of opinions, values, 
and attitudes.” Any body of social thought may, in this sense, be called an ideology, 
whether it is true or false, beneficial or harmful, democratic or undemocratic. 

Ui 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


152 

corporate state. Conversely, left-wing, socialistic ideology stresses the elim- 
ination of economic classes (that is, of social stratification based on unequal 
distribution of economic power) as a condition for the complete removal of 
stratification and outgroup exploitation. 

While fascist and socialist-communist (Marxist) ideologies represent the 
extreme right and left, respectively, with regard to political economy and 
group relations, neither point of view has as yet found much active, open 
support on the American political scene. The focus of the present study was, 
therefore, on liberalism and conservatism, the currently prevalent left- and 
right-wing political ideologies— with an eye, to be sure, on their potential 
polarization to the more extreme left and right. 

There is considerable evidence suggesting a psychological affinity between 
conservatism and ethnocentrism, liberalism and anti-ethnocentrism. In a 
preliminary study by Levinson and Sanford (71) anti-Semitism correlated 
significantly with opposition to labor unions and socialistic institutions 
(socialized medicine, government ownership of utilities, etc.). Also, Repub- 
licans were, on the average, more anti-Semitic than Democrats. The re- 
searches of Newcomb (91), Lenz (67, 68), Murphy and Likert (84), Ed- 
wards, Stagner, and others (63) have yielded similar results. Unpublished 
data from the present study indicate that both conservatism and ethnocen- 
trism are significantly correlated with support of the un-American Activities 
Committee, Hearst, the American Legion, and militarization (postwar in- 
creases in our army and navy) . 

The right-left dimension (reactionary-fascist, conservative, liberal, social- 
ist-communist) is, of course, an extremely complex one. Crucial qualitative . 
differences can be found not only among various degrees of left-ness or 
right-ness, but also among various ideological camps falling at approximately 
the same point on the right or left. Furthermore, there exists today a great 
deal of ideological heterodoxy, not to speak of simple confusion, so that a 
cutting across of formal political categories may be expected in many 
individuals. 

Despite these complicating factors an attempt was made, by means of an 
opinion-attitude scale similar to those discussed previously, to measure 
politico-economic ideology along a liberalism-conservatism dimension. We 
shall be concerned, in the sections which follow, with the construction of 
this scale and the results obtained; with the relation of ethnocentric ideology 
to politico-economic ideology, and with the relation of ethnocentrism to 
membership in various political and economic groupings. In addition to these 
quantified group results, systematic but nonqualified observations on the 
political views of ethnocentric and nonethnocentric subjects, as expressed 
in the interviews, will be presented later (Chapter XVII). 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 


r 53 


B. CONSTRUCTION OF THE POLITICO-ECONOMIC 
CONSERVATISM (PEC) SCALE 

Quantitative study began with the construction of a politico-economic 
conservatism (PEC) scale, on which a high score would represent extreme 
conservatism, a low score, extreme liberalism. The procedure followed was 
similar to that used in constructing the Anti-Semitism and Ethnocentrism 
scales (Chapters III, IV). The PEC scale differs from the others in having 
positive as well as negative items and in lacking formal subscales. The same 
method of scaling was used and similar rules of item formulation were fol- 
lowed. As in the case of the other scales, a preliminary analysis of major 
trends within this ideological area was made. This analysis was intended to 
provide the basis both for the formulation of widely inclusive scale items 
and for the interpretation of individual patterns of response. 

1. SOME MAJOR TRENDS IN CONTEMPORARY LIBERALISM 
AND CONSERVATISM 2 

No attempt was made, in the construction of the PEC scale, to cover all 
the forms in which conservatism and liberalism are currently expressed. The 
main focus was, rather, on some of the more underlying— and therefore more 
stable— ideological trends which appear to characterize conservatism and 
liberalism as contrasting approaches to politico-economic problems. While 
specific issues such as the OPA, rent control, Dumbarton Oaks, the TVA 
are always changing, most issues as they arise find liberals and conservatives 
taking opposing stands. The problem was to get behind the specific issues, 
to move, so to speak, from a purely political to a more psychological level, 
as a means of differentiating these two broad patterns of social thought. 

Conservatism and liberalism appeared to differ markedly with regard to 
the following ideological trends. (These trends are conceived as interrelated 
and as separable only for the purposes of analysis; indeed, one principle of 
item formulation was that each item should, whenever possible, express more 
than one underlying trend.) 

a. Support of the American Status Quo. Perhaps the definitive com- 
ponent of conservatism is an attachment, on the surface at least, to “things 
as they are,” to the prevailing social organization and ways. Related to the 
idea that “what is, is right,” is a tendency to idealize existing authority and 
to regard the “American Way” as working very well. Social problems tend 
either to be ignored or to be attributed to extraneous influences rather than 
to defects intrinsic in the existing social structure. One way of rationalizing 

2 It is symptomatic of the present political situation that terms like “liberalism” and “con- 
servatism” are given numerous definitions and are used as shibboleths rather than as aids in 
description or analysis. We have therefore tried to make our meanings as explicit as 
possible. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


r 54 

chronic problems is to make them “natural”; for example, “Depressions are 
like occasional headaches and stomach aches; it’s natural for even the healthi- 
est society to have them once in a while” (Item 5). Or, as a prominent ultra- 
conservative radio commentator observed recently: “There is nothing wrong 
with our American system. It is as good as it ever was, but we must do all we 
can in the New Year to get rid of the charlatans, fakers and agitators who 
are responsible for so many problems.” It is clear from the other speeches of 
this commentator that his “charlatans” are for the most part leaders of the 
labor movement or of liberal political groupings— men who, in his eyes, 
threaten the existing order. The following scale item expresses a similar idea, 
namely, that personal maturity requires conformity and the overcoming of 
“rebellious” tendencies: “Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but 
as they grow up they ought to get over them and settle down” (Item 27). 

To be “liberal,” on the other hand, one must be able actively to criticize 
existing authority. The criticisms may take various forms, ranging from 
mild reforms (e.g., extension of government controls over business) to com- 
plete overthrow of the status quo. As noted above, the scale attempts mainly 
to distinguish the political right and left rather than to identify the numerous 
varieties of left- and right-wing ideology. 

b. Resistance to Social Change. Another aspect of traditionalism is the 
tendency to oppose innovations or alterations of existing politico-economic 
forms. If things are basically good now, then any change is likely to be for 
the worse. Underlying resistance to change is sometimes expressed in the 
form of an emphasis on caution and an antipathy to being “extreme.” For 
example: “The best way to solve social problems is to stick close to the 
middle of the road, to move slowly and to avoid extremes” (Item 15). 

The opposition to change is often rationalized by an elaborate mythology 
of human nature according to which psychological man and capitalist social 
order are ideally suited to each other. According to this view, liberals are 
“utopian dreamers” who do not see man as he really is. Man is conceived as 
governed by economic self-interest and the profit motive. “In general, full 
economic security is harmful; most men would not work if they didn’t need 
the money for eating and living” (Item 61). Major social problems such as 
war and depression are regarded primarily as expressions of human nature 
rather than as products of the existing social structure. The person who 
wants to change the social structure is, therefore, either an impractical ideal- 
ist or an agitator making trouble in order to gain his own selfish ends. In short, 
basic improvement of our politico-economic forms is not possible, man being 
what he is, and social change is therefore undesirable. 

c. Support of Conservative Values. As in the other areas of ideology, 
values play a central role in organizing and giving meaning to the total pat- 
tern of politico-economic ideology. One of the primary value systems under- 
lying conservative ideology is concerned with practicality, ambition, and 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 1 55 

upward class mobility. Success tends to be measured in financial terms, and 
business is accorded very high prestige as an occupation. These values are 
reflected in the raising and indoctrination of children, who “should learn 
early in life the value of a dollar” (Item i). They are also expressed in the 
selection of men who represent models of success: “Whether one likes them 
or not, one has to admire men like Henry Ford or J. P. Morgan, who over- 
came all competition on the road to success” (Item 71). 

The values for practicality and rugged competitiveness stand in rather 
marked contrast to other, psychologically related, values for charity and 
community service. On the one hand, it is assumed that “most people get 
pretty much what they deserve” (Item 78), that ability will find its socio- 
economic rewards, and that those who end up on the low end of the social 
ladder— since they did not have what it takes— are hardly to be pitied. On the 
other hand, our religious tradition is one of charity and tolerance; if one 
cannot excuse the poor, one can at least soften their plight— with Christmas 
parties, Thanksgiving bazaars, orphanages, and the like. Industrialists like 
Carnegie and Rockefeller are examples of this combination of weekday 
toughness and Sunday charity, which Item 8 was intended to measure: 
“Every adult should find time or money for some worthy service organiza- 
tion (charity, medical aid, etc.) as the best way of aiding his fellow man.” 

From the “liberal” point of view charity is mainly a soothing of conscience 
and a means of maintaining an unjust state of affairs. The causes of poverty 
are seen, not in the innate stupidity of the poor, but in the politico-economic 
organization which, by virtue of its concentration of economic power, 
creates poverty as a symptom. And the answer is seen, not in ineffectual 
though often well-intentioned charity, but in the elimination of poverty 
through modification of its societal causes. 

It would appear, then, that liberals tend to view social problems as symp- 
toms of the underlying social structure, while conservatives view them as 
results of individual incompetence or immorality. This difference is ex- 
pressed also in the evaluation of political candidates. Conservative politicians 
tend to base their election campaigns largely on qualities of personal character 
and moral standing. To be a good family man and a leading figure in the 
community are judged more important than to know social science or to 
understand the actual politico-economic problems of the community. A 
district attorney or a businessman has a great initial advantage over a college 
professor or a labor leader. In short, political problems tend to be seen in moral 
rather than sociological terms. Item 22 was intended to measure this trend. 
“A political candidate, to be worth voting for, must first and foremost have 
a good character, one that will fight inefficiency, graft and vice.” The liberal 
alternative is not to reject “good character,” but to make it secondary, in 
political affairs, to the understanding of issues and the desire to do what is 
best for the most people. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


T 5 6 

d. Ideas Regarding the Balance of Power Among Business, Labor, and 
Government. This is the most technical and the most confused aspect of 
contemporary political thought. The confusion has multiple causes: the fact 
that most Americans are, politically, relatively uneducated and uninformed; 
the very technicality and abstractness of the basic issues involved; the fac- 
tionalism in both major political parties as well as in the minority left- and 
right-wing groups; American antipolitical, anti-intellectual tradition; and 
so on. The semantic confusion is especially great. Thus, “laissez-faire,” orig- 
inally a characteristic of liberalism, is nowadays called “conservatism.” 
Because of this confusion, it is necessary to make explicit the conception 
of conservatism used here, and to contrast it with other viewpoints. 

Conservatism is taken to mean traditional economic laissez-faire individual- 
ism, according to which our economic life is conceived in terms of the free 
(unregulated) competition of individual entrepreneurs. Business, accorded 
such great prestige by conservative values, is regarded as deserving great 
social power in relation to labor and government. Unions are regarded as 
threatening, power-seeking, interfering with the traditional functions of 
management, and promoting radical changes. Unions are likely to be ac- 
cepted only when their actual power is less than that of business: this means 
virtual elimination of the right to strike, of a voice in determining company 
policy, and of political functions— in short, of the possibility of changing to 
any significant degree the existing balance of politico-economic power. A lib- 
eral viewpoint regarding unions is expressed in Item 68: “Labor unions 
should become stronger by being politically active and by publishing labor 
newspapers to be read by the general public.” 

Conservative ideology has traditionally urged that the economic func- 
tions of government be minimized. Fear of government power (like union 
power) is emphasized, and great concern is expressed for the freedom of 
the individual, particularly the individual businessman. (The issue here is 
greatly complicated by the fact that our economy has changed from a large 
number of competing entrepreneurs to a small number of powerful eco- 
nomic units; more about this will be said in Subsection 5.) For example, 
“It is a fundamental American tradition that the individual must remain free 
of government interference, free to make money and spend it as he likes” 
(Item 63). This way of thinking assumes that the individual has “freedom” 
economically to the extent that there are no government restrictions on him; 
it overlooks the fact that economic freedom for most people today is limited 
to the greatest degree by economic forces originating in business monopoly. 
The attempt to minimize government functioning extends also to the sphere 
of social security, socialized medicine, and various other programs designed 
to help the “common man.” 

There are numerous patterns of left-wing ideology regarding these issues. 
What characterizes the left and distinguishes it from the right is the desire 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 1 57 

for a change, slight or great, in the balance of power. Support for slight 
change is exemplified by New Deal liberalism, which would increase the 
functions of government so as to reduce the power of business, increase the 
power of labor, and diminish somewhat the extreme class differences that 
now exist. The more extreme left-wing (“radical”) ideologies support more 
basic changes in the politico-economic structure; their thesis is that capital- 
ism, no matter how it is modified by reforms, must necessarily produce social 
problems such as depression, war, and mass poverty. What they want is not 
merely controls on business, but nationalization of industry, planned pro- 
duction, and production for use rather than for profit. Only when the process 
of production is organized on a socialist basis, they argue, can there be true 
economic democracy, equality of management and labor, and a high na- 
tional standard of living. 

This is not the place to consider in detail the differences among the 
various left-wing or the various right-wing ideologies. The PEC scale at- 
tempted to measure only a general right-left dimension (with the hope that 
the individual’s pattern of response might reveal more precisely the nature 
of his liberalism or conservatism). It was intended that a high score should 
indicate a high degree of the above-mentioned trends: support of the status 
quo and particularly of business; support of conservative values; desire to 
maintain a balance of power in which business is dominant, labor subordinate, 
and the economic functions of government minimized; and resistance to 
social change. Conversely, a low score was intended to reflect support of 
trends common to most left-of-center viewpoints: opposition to the status 
quo\ a tendency to think in sociological rather than moral-hereditarian 
terms; a tendency to identify with labor and the “common man” and to 
oppose the power of business; support for extension of the political and 
economic functions of government. Further differentiation of various lib- 
eral and conservative patterns can be attempted after the empirical findings 
have been presented. 

2. THE INITIAL PEC SCALE (FORM 78) 

The Form 78 PEC Scale is presented in Table i(V). Eleven of the 16 
items took the “conservative” position, so that agreement was given a high 
score (+3 = 7 points, — 3 — : 1 point); on the five “liberal” items the scor- 
ing was reversed. The items were, as can be seen from the numbering, dis- 
tributed randomly throughout the 78-item series. The questionnaire was ad- 
ministered in the spring of 1945 to three groups at the University of Cali- 
fornia: Public Speaking Class Women (N — 140) and Men (N = 52), and 
Adult Extension Psychology Class Women (N = 40); and to a group of 63 
Professional Women (teachers, nurses, social workers). 3 

3 For a more detailed discussion of the groups and the sampling problems involved in 
Form 78 as well as in the later forms, see Chapter IV (Ethnocentrism) . 



i 5 8 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE i (V) 

The Initial Politico-Economic Conservatism Scale (Form 78) 

1. A child should learn early in life the value of a dollar and the importance 
of ambition, efficiency, and determination. 

5. Depressions are like occasional headaches and stomach aches; it’s natural for 
even the healthiest society to have them once in awhile. 

8. Every adult should find time or money for some worthy service organization 
(charity, medical aid, etc.) as the best way of aiding his fellow man. 

13. 1 he businessman, the manufacturer, the practical man-these are of much 

greater value to society than the intellectual, the artist, the theorist. 

15. Ihe best way to solve social problems is to stick close to the middle of the 
road, to move slowly and to avoid extremes. 

22. A political candidate, to be worth voting for, must first and foremost have a 
good character, one that will fight inefficiency, graft, and vice 
27. Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as they grow up they ought 
to get over them and settle down 7 6 


36.“ It is the responsibility of the entire society, through its government, to guar- 
# ^ ee e y er y° ne adequate housing, income, and leisure. 

44 ‘ I u y Way t0 P rovide adequate medical care for the entire population is 
through some program of socialized medicine. 

52. 0 It is essential after the war to maintain or increase the income taxes on cor- 
porations and wealthy individuals. 

61. In general, full economic security is harmful; most men wouldn’t work if 
they didn t need the money for eating and living. 

63. It is a fundamental American tradition that the individual must remain free 
m a T g° ve ™ men t interference, free to make money and spend it as he likes. 

fi^hinlTh 115 Sh ° Uld bCCOme f tron g er b y bein g politically active and by pub- 
b sbin g labor newspapers to be read by the general public. P 

7Im y p et ii er ° ne lkes them or not ’ one has to admire men like Henry Ford or 
Mor g an > who overcame all competition on the road to success. 

lif be JT rnment T St pI L ay an CVen S reater P a rt in the economic and business 
life of the nation after the war than it has before. 

7 .™ Cter ’ b° ne u st y V a nd ability will tell in the long run; most people get 
pretty much what they deserve. F r & 


° These / tel P s are “liberal,” the others are “conservative.” A high score is riven for 
agreement with the conservative items, disagreement with the liberal items. & 


The reliability data for the PEC scale are given in Table 2(V). The aver- 
age reliability of .73 is considerably lower than those of the Anti-Semitism 
and Ethnocentrism scales (.8— .9) ; while inadequate for the precise measure- 
ment of the individual, this reliability is sufficient for the present purposes 
of group comparison and correlation with other measures. There are prob- 
ably several major reasons for the relatively low reliability values. Several 
items may not have worked out as planned, because of either poor formula- 
tion or erroneous guiding hypotheses; this possibility is investigated in the 
item analysis below. It is also possible that the absence of extreme scorers is 
due in part to a real constriction in the “range of talent’-something that 
would tend to lower the obtained reliability-rather than to the intrinsic un- 
reliability of the scale. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 1 59 


TABLE 2 (V) 


RELIABILITY OP THE PEC SCALE (FORM 78) 


Property 

A 

Group a 

B C 

D 

Over-all b 

Reliability 

.74 

.64 

.72 

.81 

.73 

Mean (total) 

4.30 

4.18 

4.29 

3.91 

4.17 

Mean (odd half) 

4.39 

4.23 

4.34 

3.96 

4.23 

Mean (even half) 

4.24 

4.12 

4.26 

3.85 

4.11 

S.D. (total 

.81 

.75 

.83 

1.10 

,87 

S.D. (odd half) 

.96 

.88 

.86 

1.28 

1.00 

S.D. (even half) 

.86 

.84 

.96 

1.09 

.94 

Range 

1.5-5. 9 

2.3-6. 0 

1. 6-5.6 

1.5-6. 4 

1.5-6. 4 


a The four groups are: 

Group A: U.C. Public Speaking Class Women (N - 140) 

Group B: U.C. Public Speaking Class Men (N = 52) 

Group C: U.C. Extension Psychology Class Women (N = 40) 

Group D: Professional Women (N = 63) 

bln obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not 
weighted by N. 

Professional Women, probably the most heterogeneous of the four groups, 
had the highest reliability (.81) as well as the largest Standard Deviation and 
range. Finally, and most basic, is the likelihood that American political think- 
ing shows an actual lack of consistency and pattern. The lack of extreme 
scorers may thus reflect an ideological reality, namely the absence of a well- 
developed and articulate political left and political right in contemporary 
America. To the extent that this is true, it is doubtful that any scale* measur- 
ing diverse trends in politico-economic ideology could obtain an average 
reliability of much over .80. 

It is interesting that for all groups the PEC means were almost a point 
higher than the A-S and E means, and that once again the Professional 
Women were significantly lower than the others. Thus, while the rank order 
of conservatism is similar to that of ethnocentrism, the general level of con- 
servatism is considerably higher. People are, so to speak, more conservative 
than ethnocentric, at least as measured by these scales. The relation of con- 
servatism to ethnocentrism will be considered more fully below (Section 

Q- 

An item analysis was made according to the procedure described in Chap- 
ter III. Table 3(V) presents the item means and Discriminatory Powers for 
the Form 78 PEC scale. The average D. P. of 2.14 is, like the reliability, lower 
than the corresponding values obtained from the previous scales. The low 


MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS OF THE PEC SCALE ITEMS (FORM 78) 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


160 



cu 



















• 



















Q 


m 


' s 











in 





lO 


rr 

CM 


CD 

s 


CO 





o 






tH 


f-H 

f-H 

CM 

f-H 

CO 

f-H 

f-H 

05 

CD 

C- 

00 

f-H 

•rji 

f-H 



a 






w 


s -' 

s -' 


V -' 





'W 



05 



















. 

CO 

CD 

00 

o 

O 

CM 

"4 

f-H 

05 

05 

CO 

05 

o 

o 

CD 

05 


f-H 

d 

H 

IT- 

T*< 

t- 

C5 

CO 

00 

o 

CD 

CM 

CD 

CO 

CO 

o 

tr- 

05 

f-H 

H 

cd 

d 

H 

CM 

f-H 

y—i 

CM 

d 

CM 

CO 

f-H 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM* 

f-H 

CM 

L 


o 

CO 

CD 

C5 

m 

oc 

CD 

CM 

00 

CD 

m 

v—4 

CO 

o 

CM 

if* 

C- 

> 

cd 

H 

CO 

"4 

CM 

CO 

CO 

00 

M 

CO 

CD 

C- 

o 

in 

co 

CO 

tr- 

H 

o 

§ 

CO 

CO 

m 

CM 

*4 

CD 

CO 

CO 

CM 

CO 

CO 



in 

CO 


Tjl 


. 

tr- 

CO 

o 

t- 

CD 

o 

CO 

C" 

O 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

CO 

CO 

CM 

o 

d 

CM 


CM 

00 

00 

CD 

CO 

o 

o 

00 



CO 

o 

in 

tr- 

00 

a 

n 

d 

rH 

CO 

CM 

f-H 

CO 

o 

■4 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CO 

tT 

CO 

CO 

CO 

f-H 

CM 

o 

u 

c 

CM 

in 

tr- 

CM 

CM 

f-H 

CO 

CO 

00 

CO 

o 

CD 

o 

CO 

^H 

CM 


u 

cd 

o 

o 

CO 

CO 

CO 

•4 

00 

•4 

05 


f-H 

m 

05 

f-H 

CM 

CD 

05 


s 

CD 

CM 

in 

CM 

tj3 

CD 

CO 

CM 

f-H 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

in 

CO 

rt< 

00 


. 

CO 

CD 

00 

rT 

f-H 

CO 

CD 

CM 

05 

CD 

in 

CM 

T#< 

CO 




o 

Dh 

00 

CO 

f-H 

05 

tr— 

o 

o 

00 

CO 

tr- 

00 

o 

tr- 


f-H 

c— 

05 

§ 

Q 

d 

CO 

tH 

H 

CM 

o' 

CM 

CO 

f-H 

^H 

CM 

CM* 

f-H 

f-H 

f-H 

CM 

f-H 

o 

u 

G 

m 

o 

£2 

in 

o 

o 

o 

in 

m 

00 

00 

CO 

00 

in 

m 

O 

05 

o 

cd 

CM 

■«* 

t- 

o 

CD 

in 

CO 

CO 

4 

tr- 

c- 



T* 

o 

OO 

CM 


s 

CD 

CO 

in 

CM 

*4 

CD 

4 

CO 

CM 

CO 

CO 

rt> 


in 

co 




. 

f-H 

CD 

tr- 

m 

in 

05 

m 

f-H 

CM 

00 


rt* 

in 

tr- 

c- 

CSI 


CQ 

CL. 

00 

00 

f-H 

CM 

•4 

CO 

o 

4 

IT- 

in 


CO 

tr- 

CD 

o 

m 

oo 

Q, 

Q 

o 

pH 

pH 

*-t 

CM 

o 

CM 

CM 

f-H 

CM 

CM 

^H 

f-H 

pH 


pH 

pH 

G 



















o 

Pi 

s 


in 

CD 

Tt< 

T4 

rr- 

CM 

in 

00 

05 


lO 

CO 

pH 

in 

CM 

00 

o 

cd 

o 

r- 

O 

in 

■4 

H 

CD 

co 

in 

CD 

05 

O 

CO 

CM 

co 


pH 



m 

co 

in 

CM 

■4 

CD 

CO 

CO 

CM 

CO 

oo 

CO 


in 

co 





C5 

05 

in 

CO 

O 

pH 1 

o 

CO 

4 

CM 

in 

f-H 

CO 

05 

CM 

CD 

C- 

< 

d 

CD 

O 

CO 

c- 

CD 

CO 

05 

tr- 

CD 

O 

o 

00 

CO 

00 

CO 

05 

05 

p, 

Q 

H 

CM 

pH 

p - 1 

CM 

d 

CM 

CM 

pH t 

CM 

CM 

f-H 

(N 

pH 

CM 

pH 

pH 

p 



















o 

Pi 

G 

o 

CO 

CD 

-4 

CO 

T4 

pH 1 

CD 

05 

CO 

05 

^H 

^H 

CM 

05 


o 

C3 

cd 

(D 

CSI 

CM 

CD 

CM 

o 

•4 

t- 

4 

4 

tr- 

pH 

f-H 

f-H 

T* 

CD 

pH 

CO 


s 

CD 

CO 

in 

CM 

'd* 

CD 

CO 

CO 

CM 

C0 



in 

in 

CO 

in 

T* 

























/•-s 




£ 















CO 


•— * 


4J 

y— S 














4-5 

IP". 

05 


•pH 

05 

to 


a> 







el 




CO 

■pH 

■S 

td 

p-s 

pH 

iH 

c 

•pH 

§ 


s 




pH 



cm 





o 

T3 

CO 

jQ 

O 

•pH 

H-> 

05 



y— s 

pH 



+> 

u 



Pi 

Pi 

iH 

cd 

iH 

iH 

40 

•pH 

Pi 

u 


>> 

05 



■M| 

cd 



cd 


T3 

0 ) 

CO 

•a 

od 

Pi 

05 

a ) 


4J 

45 




^H 




a> 

C 

T3 

c 


Pi 

P 

«M 

W) 


•pH 





f-H 

i"—. 


.. 

sz 

cd 

•pH 

o 


O 

o 

Pi 

c 

G 

> 

pH 

B 



o 

to 


c 

40 

o 


p. 


P< 

05 

05 

o 

cd 

•pH 

pH 

05 



T3 

c 


V 



CO 

CO 

T3 

Pi 

to 

4J 

u 

b 0 

■4* 

•pH 

45 




o 


e 


1 — 1 

p 

05 

05 

o 


c 

H-> 

U 

O 

£ 

•pH 




•pH 


CO 

o 

cd 

o 

Pi 

N 

o 

o 

•pH 

CO 

o 

cd 





O 

CO 


CO 


CJ 

•pH 


•pH 


•pH 



s 



Pi 




w 

40 

a 

05 

iH 

»— 1 


l—l 


e 


CO 



45 

05 



0) 

a> 

H 

G 

H 

40 

»— 1 

45 

cd 

CO 

o 

4J 

c 

m 

45 

•pH 

Gi 



s 

Pi 

Pi 

iH 

T3 

•i — 1 

05 


•pH 

05 

c 


o 

T3 


• — 1 




f-H 

Pi 

cd 

£3 

T3 

i — 1 

.Q 

> 

o 

X 

o 

> 

•rH 

Pi 

V 

•pH 

c 



cd 

0 ) 

sz 

p 

•H 

O 

05 

o 

O 

3 

o 

O 

c 

O 

5 

XI 

cd 




Q 

O 

ca 

s 

CL 

OS 

o 

w 

h 

H 

o 

5 


a 

< 

05 





W 


w 

' 








w 



s 


d| 

f-H 

in 

CO 

CO 

in 

CM 

d 

CD 


CM 

*— t 

CO 

00 

pH 

CD 

OO 



2: 1 




^H 

pH 

CM 

CM 

CO 


in 

CD 

CD 

CD 

tr- 

tr- 

tr- 



a 

£> 


The four groups are: Group A, U.C. Public Speaking Class Women (N = 140); Group B, U.C. Public Speaking Class 
Men (N = 52); Group C, U.C. Extension Psychology Class Women (N = 40); Group D, Professional Women (N = 63). 


POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS l6l 

average D. P. (and thus the low reliability) is not due to the counterbalanc- 
ing of several very good items by several very poor ones; the best item has a 
D. P. of 3.0— not extremely high by previous standards— and the values di- 
minish very gradually. It is noteworthy that the best items deal with a 
variety of trends: acceptance of depressions as natural (Item 5); values for 
the “middle of the road” and slow social change (Item 15); and for con- 
formity to existing authority (Item 27); and “liberal” items supporting eco- 
nomic security, increased government functioning, and unions (Items 36, 
61, 68, 76). 

Of the seven items with the lowest D. P.’s, six had means greater than 5.3 
or less than 2.4; that is, these items tended to evoke almost uniform responses 
of agreement or of disagreement. (None of the 9 best items had such extreme 
means.) In view of the greatly reduced variability of response to these items, 
the D. P.’s are more significant than they at first appear. Only the lowest 
D. P. of 0.32 (for Item 22) can be considered clearly insignificant. For the 
other low D. P. items the difference between the high and low quartiles is 
statistically significant. For a given item the difference is not that one quartile 
consistently agrees while the other disagrees; it lies rather in the fact that one 
quartile consistently obtains an extreme score while the other tends to be 
more neutral in its stand. Thus, with regard to the importance of teaching 
a child the value of a dollar (Item 1), the extreme conservatives most fre- 
quently responded with a +3, while the extreme liberals tended to respond 
-|— 1, a difference in emphasis rather than an actual opposition. There were 
four such items (1, 8, 22, 71), all dealing with conventional values, on which 
very few subjects made extremely low scores, and two (13, 44) on which 
there were few high scores. Some of these items were reformulated in the 
succeeding form of the scale, with the intention of eliminating possible am- 
biguities and thus increasing the D. P.’s. The possibility remains, of course, 
that the relative uniformity of response to these items reflects an actual uni- 
formity of belief on the part of these groups of subjects. 

Since most of the 78 items in this series are agreed with by the high scorers 
on the various scales (A-S, E, PEC, F), disagreed with by the low scorers, 
the question of a mechanical “set” to agree or to disagree may be raised. For 
instance, once an individual gets set consistently to disagree, is he not likely 
to continue disagreeing regardless of the content of the items? The “set” 
factor was considered, and found to play a negligible role, in the previous 
scales. By way of further evidence, we may consider the five “liberal” items, 
that is, those which tend to be agreed with by individuals who usually dis- 
agree with the other items. The 5 rank D. P.’s range from 1 to 13, and aver- 
age 7.1, or slightly better than the scale average of 8.5. Furthermore, the 
extreme liberals tended, as noted above, to agree even with some of the 
“conservative” items. The great variability of the item means is also a sign 
of selective response to each item. It seems safe to conclude that set is not a 



i6z 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


major determinant of response, although it may enter as a minor complicat- 
ing factor. 

The item means in Table 3(V) are also worthy of note. The highest 
means are on items expressing conventional values (i, 8, 22, 71). The very 
high mean (6.38), as well as the negligible D. P., on Item 22 is probably due 
in part to inadequate formulation; but also to the actual tendency of most 
Americans to regard the good politician as a fighter against vice rather than 
as one who understands the political and economic problems of democratic 
government. In contrast to this, the two “conventional values” items which 
discriminated very well and whose means were near the neutral point of 4.0 
are particularly important. These items, 15 (Middle of the road) and 27 (Re- 
bellious ideas), seem to reflect a primary personality trend underlying ideo- 
logical conservatism, namely the surface acceptance of authority and the 
overcoming of rebellious tendencies. It seems possible that the rebellious tend- 
encies have not actually been outgrown but have rather been inhibited, so 
that the emphasis on conformity now serves as a defense against underlying 
hostility toward accepted authority. This hypothesis, which arose previously 
in the case of the ethnocentrists’ uncritical submission to ingroup authority, 
will be considered in detail in the chapters which follow. 

Among the more directly ideological items, the highest mean, 4.58, was 
made on Item 68 (Unions stronger). This result may indicate a fear of union 
strength, and perhaps a sense of alienation from the working class, among 
numerous middle-class individuals who are “liberal” with respect to the 
other political trends expressed in the scale. For example, the means on the 
several items (36, 44, 52, 61, 76) dealing with social security and extension 
of government functions are all well below 4.0, indicating considerable sup- 
port for the liberal viewpoint. 

The low means on the “government” items raise another question: Why 
do many individuals who are otherwise conservative support an increase in 
government activity? In some cases this inconsistency probably reflects 
ideological confusion or the beginnings of change from right to left or vice 
versa. However, this apparent contradiction may reflect something much 
more basic, namely a shift from traditional laissez-faire conservatism, whose 
economic unit was the individual competitive businessman, to a new type of 
conservatism whose economic unit is organized big business. As was pointed 
out earlier in this chapter, the assumption of liberalism-conservatism as a 
simple quantitative dimension holds only in the most general sense. It was 
for this reason, among others, that the theory guiding scale construction was 
presented in some detail. It is possible, then, for an individual to make a 
moderately high rather than a very high score, not because of any true 
liberal tendency, but because of a change in the nature of his conservatism. 
He is now willing to extend the functions of government for reasons that 
are the opposite of liberal, for he conceives of government as a tool of busi- 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 1 63 

ness rather than as a means of controlling corporate capital and of pre- 
venting concentrations of economic power. We shall return again to this 
question after considering the relation between the PEC and E scales. 

3 . THE SECOND PEC SCALE (FORM 60 ) 

In Form 60 the PEC Scale (see Table 4(V)) was shortened to 14 items, 
and numerous changes were made in content and wording. Items 27 and 60, 

TABLE 4 (V) 

The Second Form of the Politico-Economic 
Conservatism (PEC) Scale (Form 60) 

4.“ Labor unions should become stronger and have more influence generally. 
9. 0 Most government controls over business should continue after the war. 

13. America may not be perfect, but the American Way has brought us about 
as close as human beings can get to a perfect society. 

15." If America had more men like Henry Wallace in office, we would get along 
much better. 

20.“ The artist and the professor are of just as much value to society as the 
businessman and the manufacturer. 

26. It would be dangerous for the U. S. to cooperate too closely with Russia. 

27. The best political candidate to vote for is the one whose greatest interest is 
in fighting vice and graft. 

31.“ No one should be allowed to earn more than $25,000 a year. 

37.“ It is up to the government to make sure that everyone has a secure job and 
a good standard of living. 

43.“ The government should own and operate all public utilities (transportation, 
gas and electric, railroads, etc.). 

48.“ Depressions can be prevented by proper government planning. 

54.“ Poverty could be almost entirely done away with if we made certain basic 
changes in our social and economic system. 

56. Men like Henry Ford or J. P. Morgan, who overcome all competition on 
the road to success, are models for all young people to admire and imitate. 
60. In general, the best way of aiding our fellow men is to give time or money 
to some worthy charity. 

0 These nine items are “liberal,” the other five are “conservative.” A high score is given 
for agreement with the conservative items, disagreement with the liberal items. 

referring to political candidates and the importance of charity, respectively, 
are reformulations of items that were unsuccessful in Form 78; the present 
formulations are, presumably, more clear-cut expressions of the trends 
initially hypothesized. Two items which worked relatively well in Form 78, 
numbers 27 (Rebellious ideas) and 61 (Security is bad), were placed in the 
Form 60 F scale (see Chapter VII) because they seemed on theoretical 
grounds to fit better there. 

Several totally new items have been added. Item 13 (The American Way) 
was taken from the Form 78 E scale (see Chapter IV) ; it is transitional be- 
tween conservatism and ethnocentrism in that it expresses both conservative 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


164 

support of the politico-economic status quo and ethnocentric idealization 
of the ingroup. Taken literally, however, it seemed to fall more within the 
sphere of political ideology. Correlational analysis is required before this 
item can properly be placed within one scale or the other. 

Three of the new items provide vivid reminders of the speed of historical 
change. Item 15 (Wallace) was formulated when the confirmation of Henry 
Wallace as Secretary of Commerce was the issue of the day. Item 26 (Russia) 
reflected the atmosphere of the initial postwar period, when cooperation 
rather than containment was the prevailing attitude toward Russia. Item 
31 referred to President Roosevelt’s wartime suggestion of a $25,000 limit 
on yearly incomes. It will be noted that the Form 60 scale contains fewer gen- 
eralizations and more concrete references to specific issues than did Form 78. 

Form 60 was administered in the summer of 1945 to several groups which 
were combined for statistical purposes as follows, (a) University of Oregon 
Student Women (N = 47), undergraduate students attending summer 
session courses in psychology, (b) Combined University of Oregon and 
University of California Student Women (N — 54), the Oregon group being 
obtained too late to be included in (a); the California group was a summer 
session education class containing mostly teachers and others of above college 
age. (c) University of Oregon and University of California Student Men 
(N = 57 )» from the same classes as the (b) women, (d) Oregon Service 
Club Men (N = 68), obtained at luncheon meetings of service clubs (Ki- 
wanis. Lions, Rotary). 4 

The last three groupings received the total Form 60 questionnaire in one 
sitting. However, the first group of Oregon Student Women received the 
questionnaire in two parts, A and B. Part A included the F scale and half 
of PEC, while Part B contained the E scale and the remaining half of 
PEC. The purpose of this division was to help determine whether the pres- 
ence of the E items had any effect on the responses to the F items; the results 
will be discussed in Chapter VII. 

The reliability data for the Form 60 PEC Scale are presented in Table 
5(V). The average reliability of .70 is substantially the same as that of .73 
for the initial form, and indicates that the changes in wording and content 
did not improve this property of the scale. The fact that the reliabilities, 
S. D.’s, and ranges vary so little among these four groups, as well as among 
those taking the first form (Form 78), suggests that a scale of this length and 
this degree of inclusiveness can hardly be expected to obtain an average re- 
liability greater than .7-8. The main reason for the relatively low reliability 
of PEC, as compared with E, appears to lie in the fact that political ideology 
is intrinsically less organized and less consistent in the individual today than 
is ideology concerning group relations. 

Once again the group means on PEC are significantly higher than those on 

4 For a discussion of the sampling problems involved, see Chapter IV. 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 1 65 

TABLE 5 (V) 


RELIABILITY OP THE PEC SCALE (FORM 60) 



I II III IV 


Reliability .73 -69 .69 .70 .70 

Mean (total) 3.72 3.82 3.77 4.40 3.92 

Mean (odd half) 3.86(A) 0 3.60 3.55 4.06 3.74 

Mean (even half) 3.58(B) 0 4.03 3.99 4.68 4.23 a 

S.D. (total) .90 .80 .92 

S.D. (odd half) .97(A) 0 .78 .95 

S.D. (even half) 1.02(B) 0 1.05 1.14 

Range 1.2-5. 6 1. 0-5.5 1. 2 -5.0 1.6-6. 1 1.0-6. 1 

a The four groups are: 

Group I: University of Oregon Student Women (N = 47) 

Group II: University of Oregon and University of California Student 

Women (N = 54) 

Group III: University of Oregon and University of California Student 
Men (N = 57) 

Group IV: Oregon Service Club Men (N‘ = 68) 

b In obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not 
weighted by N. 

c The signs (A) and (B) refer to the two parts of the questionnaire given 
to Group I; half of PEC was in part (A), the other half in part (B). 

The reliability for this group is based on the correlation between the 
A and B halves. 

d The Over-all mean (odd) (even), and S.D. (odd) (even) include only the 
three groups taking the total form since the (A) and (B) halves of the 
split form do not correspond to the odd and even halves of the total 
form. 

E (Chapter IV), suggesting that the level of conservatism is higher than the 
level of ethnocentrism. Again, the rank order of group means on PEC tends 
to follow that on E, with the Service Club Men being significantly more con- 
servative (beyond the i per cent level) than the combined university groups. 
These facts would lead us to expect a significant correlation between PEC 
and E (see Section C). While the Service Club Men are quite conservative on 
the average (mean of 4.4), the lowest score being 1.6, this group can by no 
means be considered ideologically homogeneous; indeed, it shows about the 
same degree of internal variability (range and S. D.) as do the other groups. 
We are given another warning against stereotypy in thinking about groups 
and about group memberships as determinants of ideology. This is not to 
say that service clubs are not “conservative groups” in terms of actual 
policy. Rather, it would appear that group policy and leadership, in this case 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


1 66 

at least, reflect the average degree of conservatism, the conservative tradition, 
and frequently the immediate business interests of the group. However, to 
say that such-and-such is a conservative group, in terms of actual policy, is 
not necessarily to imply that all members are strongly conservative. Simi- 
larly, not all individuals who call themselves “New Deal Democrats” are 
thoroughly liberal in their personal ideologies; not all Catholics support the 
political program of the policy-makers of the Catholic Church; and so on. 
This is one of the main problems in bringing together the psychological 
and the sociological approaches; it is an especially great problem for that 
theory of social psychology which regards the individual adult as merely 
a product or sum of his various group memberships. 

The data on item analysis are presented in Table 6(V). The over-all D. 
P. of 2.08 is almost identical with that of 2.14 on the initial PEC scale, as 
might be expected from the similar reliabilities. The best items deal for the 
most part with government functioning; ownership of utilities, controls over 
business, limitations on income. Item 4 (Unions) worked out relatively well 
(rank order 6) despite its having the highest over-all mean, 5.35; even in the 
university groups the mean did not fall below 5.0. Item 1 5 (Wallace) came 
out similarly; it had the third best D. P. despite a mean of 5.00. Other items 
with D. P.’s of over 2.0 include 13 (American Way), 54 (Poverty), and 56 
(Ford and Morgan). 

The five poorest items are also of some interest. Three of these, 20 (Artists, 
businessmen), 27 (Political candidate), and 60 (Charity), are reformulations 
of poor items in Form 78. Almost none of these subjects disagreed with the 
idea that the artist and professor are as important as the businessmen, al- 
though the liberals agreed more emphatically than the conservatives (the 
difference being statistically significant only in the Service Club Men). The 
D. P. of 1.06 on Item 27, while statistically significant, indicates considerable 
overlap between the high and low quartiles. Further exploratory research is 
required in order to determine possible differences between liberals and 
conservatives with respect to underlying imagery of “the good political 
candidate.” Item 48 (Depressions) is an example of not leaving well enough 
alone. In the initial form this item had a D. P. rank of 4.5; in this form, after 
drastic revision, its rank was 12. Both the mean and D. P. on Item 26 (Dan- 
gerous to cooperate with Russia) are somewhat surprising. The mean of 2.57 
indicates that very few individuals agreed with this item. The D. P. of 1.60 
is more significant than it at first appears, because of the low mean, but it 
shows that even conservatives were divided on the Russian issue at the close 
of the war. This is shown most dramatically by the Service Club Men who, 
although strongly conservative on most domestic issues, obtained on the 
Russian item a mean of 2.51 and a D. P. of .93. How and why slight support 
has, within less than two years, changed to bitter antagonism, is a problem 
beyond the scope of the present study. 



MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY PCWERS OF THE PEC SCALE ITEMS (FORM 60) 


POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 



# 

















0- 






in 








in 




















0 

y** 

x-“H 

X—N 

x— 1 . 


0 

CO 

X— \ 

X—* 

X— H. 

CD 

X— s. 


0 




CO 

CD 

O 

CO 

H 

H 

rH 

in 


rH 

rH 

00 

05 

rH 




















c 

















cD 

















a: 


















H 

05 

CO 

CD 

H 

0 

CO 


rH 

CO 

0 


CO 

0 

00 

»-H 

cu 


CO 

CO 

CO 


CO 

0 

CO 

CO 

in 

CD 

0 

CO 

0 

i-H 

a 

d 

cd 

CD 

CD* 

CD 

d 

H 

rH 

CD 

CD* 

CO 

rH 

CD 

CD 

rH 

CD* 

u 

<D 

c 

in 

CO 

CO 

8 


r- 

05 

O 


CO 

CO 


00 

in 

CD 

e 

CO 

CO 

CO 


in 


O 

r- 

05 

CD 

O 

0 

CO 

05 



















S 

m 



in 

rH 

CD 

CO 

in 

O 1 


CO 


CO 

CD 

CO 



CO 

CD 

CO 

H 

in 

CO 

66 

CD 

05 

CO 


CO 

CO 

CD 

rH 

> 

d 

r~ 

CO 

H 

in 

rH 

05 

rH 

05 

CD 

05 

CO 

rH 

CD 

CO 


















o. 

0 

CD 

CD 

CD 

CD 

rH 

O 

rH 

CD 

CD* 

CO 

rH 

CD 

CO 

CD 

CD* 

0 

c 

in 

t- 

CO 

Tt< 

t- 

rH 

rH 

CO 

CO 

CD 

rH 

rH 

Tt* 

00 

O 

P 

O 

CD 

\M 


CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

in 

CD 

in 

CO 

00 


CO 

CO 

00 



in 

in 

Tji 

in 

H 

CD 

CO 

in 

in 

in 



CO 

CD 




0 


CO 

CO 

'D* 

CD 

05 

CD 

t- 

00 

0 

CO 

in 

rH 

rH 

HH 

cu 

CO 

05 

O 

CO 

H 

in 

rH 


CD 


CO 

00 

t- 

05 

05 


d 

H 

CD 

CO 

CD 

d 

rH 

rH 

CO 

rH 

CO 

rH 

rH 

rH 

d 

rH 

a 


















c 


CO 

05 

t- 

in 

H 

0 

5 

t~ 

c- 


05 


0 

t- 

t- 

g 

cD 


CSJ 

CO 

r- 

CO 

in 

CO 

rH 

CO 

CO 

O 

CD 

0 


t~ 

a 

M 


in 

T* 

CO 


H 

CD 

CO 

in 



CO 


CO 

CD 

CO 




CO 

CD 

s 

CO 

t~ 

T* 

CO 

CD 

tr- 

in 

CD 

CD 

CO 



cu 

CO 

CD 

CD 

CO 


CO 

05 

c- 

C- 

00 

O 

l-H 


05 

a 

a 

CSJ* 

CD* 

CD 

CD 

d 

T-I 

d 

l-H 

co 

CD* 

d 

CD 

CD* 

i-H 

l-H 

8 

S 

CO 

H 

H 

CD 

CD 


0 


CD 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CD 

[— 

CD 

P 

cD 

0 

CO 

05 

t- 

CD 

in 

CO 

t- 

t* 

05 

t- 

CO 

CD 

00 

OO 

0 

\M 



















in 




H 

CD 

CO 




CD 

CO 

CO 

CD* 

CO 



in 


C- 

O 

CO 

05 


CD 

CO 


O 

05 

CO 

Tf 

CO 

>H 

cu 

CO 

in 

05 

O 

0 


c-l 

CD 


05 

05 

CO 

l-H 

in 

l-H 

Qt 

0 

CSJ* 

CO 

I-H 

CO 

d 

CSJ* 

d 

CD* 

CD* 

CO 

H 

CD* 

l-H 

l-H 

CD 

S 

















O 

P 

O 

§ 

CO 

Tt< 

9 

in 

tH 

05 

t- 

C- 

H 

s 

0 

0 

H 

in 

1 — 1 
CD 

I> 

r- 

00 

CD 

O 

r- 

c- 

00 

CO 



SB 

in 


rt> 


T-i 

CD* 





CD 


CD 

CD 

CO 
























m 

















p 

















0 


z— « 















CO 


<u 















CO 


-p 
















cu 


CD 










B 








T3 










<a 



CO 



0 


■rH 


CO 








-p 

HH 



(— H 

O 



P 

O. 


■s 


■§ 










P 





CD 


•T-> 




e 


B 




-P 

d 


*2 


0 

m 



CO 


cD 


Q) 




c 

3: 


c 


P 

T3 


S 


bfi 


-P 




0 



CD 


i—l 

>> 

O 

CO 

0 


P 


tH 




0 

a 

J^s 



CD 

N 

CD 

a) 

•rH 


i 

yMt, 




r-*. 


CD 

0) 

m 

s 

O 

O 


•rH 

CO 

>> 

>> 

P 



« 

• 

0 

Q 

-p 

CD 

iH 

O 

, 

-P 

CO 

t 


-P 

<U 



c 

-p 

•H 

cD 

co 

•H 

-P 

O 

-P 

•rH 

05 

* 

•rH 

Q< 



0 


P 

i—h 

•H 

CO 

•H 



l-H 

P 

<D 

■E 

p 




■H 

> 

§> 

1— H 

-P 


i-H 

in 

> 

•H 

Qt 

> 

£ 

C 



c 

0 

B 

CD 

p 

=3 

O 

CD 

O 

•P 

<u 

O 

0 

CD 



CD 

0 

< 

m. 

< 

S 

w 

09 - 

O 


Q 

CU 

NH 

b 

0 

£ 


oi 

rt> 

05 

CO 

in 

d 

CO 

d 

iH 

d 

CO 

CO 


CO 

d 



zl 



H 

H 

CD 

CD 

CD 

CO 

CO 



in 

in 

CO 



$ ~ 
li 5b 


as 


167 


Group II: University of Oregon and University of California Student Women (N 
Group III: University of Oregon and University of California Student Men (N = 
Group IV: Oregon Service Club Men (N = 68) 



1 68 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


These groups are more conservative on specific issues than the over-all 
scale mean of 3.92 indicates. The over-all means on the items (4, 9, 15, 31, 
37> 43) dealing with unions, business, and government functions range from 
4.74 to 5.35, and these items are also the most discriminating. It would appear, 
then, that with regard to what is most definitive in liberalism and conserva- 
tism— mainly ideas regarding power relations among labor, business, and gov- 
ernment— the liberal position is as yet less crystallized and less militantly held 
than is the conservative position. There is some question as to how far these 
results can be generalized beyond the present sample. 5 They are, however, 
in general accord with numerous other findings and observations regarding 
the contemporary political scene. What is more difficult, and also more im- 
portant, to gauge is the psychological potential for future ideological de- 
velopment in various directions in the face of changing political and economic 
conditions. Perhaps the other components of political ideology, when sys- 
tematically measured and psychologically understood, would provide a 
basis for the solution of this problem. 

4. THE THIRD PEC SCALE (FORMS 45 AND 40) 

The construction of Forms 45 and 40 was, as has been discussed in the 
previous chapter, influenced greatly by considerations of practicality and 
of administrative expediency. In view of these considerations, and in order 
to make room for the inclusion of other material, the PEC scale was cut 
literally to the bone. It was identical in both forms of the questionnaire and 
contained only five items— not enough to obtain an adequate measure of re- 
liability, and hardly enough to be called a “scale.” The reasoning behind 
the use of a five-item E scale was discussed and criticized in Chapter IV; the 
same criticisms apply to the present PEC scale. It appears now that it would 
have been wiser to have used a 10-item form; the short form used did, how- 
ever, make possible the comparison of various groups and the study of rela- 
tionships between this scale and the others. 

The Form 45-40 PEC scale is presented in Table 7(V). It will be seen 
that the five items were not selected solely on statistical grounds; rather an 
attempt was made to include items whose D. P.’s were above a minimal level 
and, more important, which covered as many as possible of the ideological 
trends previously discussed. The first four items are taken, with occasional 
slight revisions, from Form 60. Item 17 (Economic security), has a history 
of transiency; originally in the Form 78 PEC scale, it was moved to the F 
scale in Form 60 (see Chapter VII) ; it has been returned to PEC in an attempt 
to rid the F scale of all items which might be connected fairly directly with 

5 The representativeness of this sample with respect to political party and other group 
memberships will be considered later in this chapter (Section E). That the university 
groups are not unusually conservative is suggested by the fact that E-scale means are rela- 
tively low in comparison with other middle-class groups (see Chapter IV). Their PEC 
means can be compared with those for the groups taking Forms 45 and 40, below. 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 1 69 

TABLE 7 (V) 

The Third Form of the Politico-Economic Conservatism 
(PEC) Scale (Forms 45-40) 

3. 0 Labor unions should become stronger and have more influence generally. 

7. America may not be perfect, but the American Way has brought us about 
as close as human beings can get to a perfect society. 

1 i.° Most government controls over business should be continued even though 
the war is over. 

14. Men like Henry Ford or J. P. Morgan, who overcame all competition on 
the road to success, are models for all young people to admire and imitate. 
17. In general, full economic security is bad; most men wouldn’t work if they 
didn’t need the money for eating and living. 

a These items are “liberal,” the others are “conservative.” A high score is given for agree- 
ment with the conservative items, disagreement with the liberal items. 

existing ideologies regarding politico-economic or minority groups. Item 1 7, 
as well as several others, might be included in any of several scales; proper 
placement must ultimately be based on statistical analysis. 

Forms 45 and 40 were administered late in 1945 and in the first part of 
1946. The sampling methods and problems, as well as the composition of the 
groups and their combination for statistical purposes, have been discussed in 
Chapter IV. It will suffice here to list the groups comprising this sample. 

The Form 45 sample contains four groups: (a) Extension Testing Class 
(adult) Women (N = 59) at the University of California; (b) San Quentin 
Men (N = no), inmates at the California State Prison; (c) and (d) Psychi- 
atric Clinic Women (N = 71) and Men (N = 50), mostly outpatients at 
a community clinic in San Francisco. 

The following groups are included in the Form 40 sample: (e) George 
Washington University Women (N = 132), members of day and evening 
classes in psychology; (f) California Service Club Men (N = 63), obtained 
at luncheon meetings of San Francisco Bay Area Kiwanis and Rotary clubs; 
(g) and (h) Middle-Class Men (N — 69) and Women (N = 154)1 mem- 
bers of various local groups such as church, P. T. A., women’s clubs, etc.; 
(i) and (j) Working-Class Men (N = 61) and Women (N = 53), mem- 
bers of local groups such as United Electrical Workers Union, Warehouse- 
men’s Union (I. L. W. U.), California Labor School, etc.; (k) and ( 1 ) Los 
Angeles Men (N = 117) and Women (N = 130), a heterogeneous but 
largely middle-class sample of various local groups in Los Angeles. Data 
on some of the subgroupings within these statistical units will be considered 
in Section E, below. 

In addition, there were two groups which were given both Forms 45 and 
40. First, the School for Merchant Marine Officers (to be referred to as 
“Maritime School”) (N = 343), half of which was given Form 45, the other 
half Form 40, the two halves being equated for intelligence (AGCT), time 
in school, and planned function as officer (deck or engine). Second, veterans 



I 7° the authoritarian personality 

TABLE 8 (V) 


MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF PEC SCALE SCORES FOR 
GROUPS TAKING FORMS 45 AND 40 



Group 



Statistical Property 



N 

Mean 

Rank 

S.D. 

Mean E A 

Rank 

a. 

Groups taking Form 45 
Extension Testing Class 








Women 

59 

4.33 

(4) 

1.28 

3.77 

(12) 


San Quentin Men 

110 

4. 68„ 

(2) 

0.96 

5.33 

(1) 


Psychiatric Clinic Women 

71 

4.12 a 

(11) 

1.53 

4.23 

(5) 


Psychiatric Clinic Men 

50 

4. 14 a 

(10) 

1.40 

3.92 

(7.5) 


Over-all D 

290 

4.32 


1.29 

4.31 


b. 

Groups taking Form 40 
George Washington 








University Women 
California Service Club 

132 

4.30 

(6.5) 

1.13 

4.04 

(6) 


Men 

63 

4.83 

(1) 

1.31 

4.31 

(4) 


Middle -Class Men 

69 

4.30 

(6.5) 

1.52 

3.89 

(10) 


Middle-Class Women 

154 

4.26 

(8) 

1.62 

3.64 

(14) 


Working-Class Men 

61 

3.39 

(13) 

1.58 

3.92 

(7.5) 


Working-Class Women 

53 

3.25 

(14) 

1.53 

3.91 

(9) 


Los Angeles Men 

117 

3.91 

(12) 

1.49 

3.82 

(11) 


Los Angeles Women 
Over-all* 5 

130 

4. 16 

(9) 

1.41 

3.71 

(13) 


779 

4.05 


1.45 

3.91 


c. 

Groups taking both forms 
Maritime School Men 








Form 45 

Form 40 

179 

164 

4.31) 

4.32) 

(5) 

t-i 

0 

00 

4.95 

(2) 


Employment Service Men 
Veterans 








Form 45 

51 

4.35) 

(3) 

(l.28 




Form 40 

Over-all* 5 

55 

4.37) 

4.43 

(3) 


449 

4.34 


1.18 

4.69 


d. 

Totals for all groups 

1518 

4.19 


1.37 

4. 13 



a The use of two forms for the Psychiatric Clinic groups complicated the 
PEC scale results somewhat. The data above are based on 45 women and 29 
men taking the Form 45 PEC scale. For the remaining 26 women taking the 
Form 60 PEC scale (14 items) the mean was 4.05. and for 21 men the mean 
was 4.04. For the combined 47 men and women taking this scale, the 
reliability was .77 and the Standard Deviation was 1.05— values com- 
parable to those of the other groups taking Form 60. 

b ln obtaining the over-all values, the individual group means were not 
weighted by N. 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 1 7 1 

coming for vocational guidance to the U.S. Employment Service over a period 
of several months, the first 51 receiving Form 45, the next 55, Form 40. This 
procedure had mainly to do with determining possible effects of the presence 
of certain E items on the F-scale responses and will be discussed in more de- 
tail in Chapter VII. 

In view of the shortness of the PEC scale, no reliabilities were computed. 
However, means and S. D.’s were obtained for each group and are given in 
Table 8 (V). The group means appear to fall into three main levels of mag- 
nitude. The two most conservative groups are the California Service Club 
Men (4.83) and the San Quentin Men (4.68). At an intermediate level, with 
PEC means of 3.91 to 4.37 (significantly lower than the first level and higher 
than the third) is the bulk of the total sample: University groups, Psy- 
chiatric Clinic Patients, the Middle-Class and Los Angeles groups. Finally, 
the most liberal groups— although the means of 3.25 and 3.39 are far from 
extreme, and the variability within each group is large— are the Working- 
Class Men and Women. 

That the Service Club Men make the highest mean is not so much a new 
discovery as a partial indication that the scale provides a valid measure of 
conservatism. The program and tradition of these groups are fairly explicit 
in their support of numerous trends in conservative ideology. It will be re- 
called that similar results were found with the Oregon Service Club Men 
(Form 60). Once again, however, we must emphasize the variabihty within 
this and the other groups. 

The great conservatism of the San Quentin Men may come as a surprise 
to those who conceive of criminals as conscious foes of the social order and 
to those who assume a psychological affinity between criminality and radical- 
ism. It might have been expected that those who violate prevailing laws re- 
garding property and morality would tend to oppose the prevailing social 
ideology and social authority. Yet this does not appear to be the case. Crimi- 
nals accept the basic premises of the capitalistic system while at the same 
time engaging in a pseudorebellion against the formal rules and technicalities. 
The criminal does not oppose the principles of rugged individualism; he 
simply carries them ad absurdum. The San Quentin material and the relation 
of criminality to antidemocracy are considered further in Chapter XXI. 

The problem of class differences in conservatism is raised by the fact that 
the Working-Class Men and Women make a significantly lower PEC mean 
than do the Middle-Class Men and Women and the Los Angeles group 
(which is largely middle class). There are several reasons for questioning 
whether these differences can be generalized to the broad middle- and work- 
ing-class populations. For one thing, the Working-Class group shows a j 
distinct sampling bias in a liberal direction: almost half the members of this | 
group are from the United Electrical Workers (C.I.O.), a militant union, or j 
from the California Labor School, a strongly left-wing institution. The 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


J 7 2 

Middle-Class groups are more varied and probably more representative in 
membership. Furthermore, several groups with PEC means similar to those 
of the Middle-Class groups contain a large proportion of working-class indi- 
viduals; these groups are the San Quentin Men (almost entirely working 
class), the Psychiatric Clinic Patients, and the Maritime School and Employ- 
ment Service Veteran Men. In view of the intergroup as well as the intra- 
group variability, it seems safe to conclude that over-all class differences in 
political ideology are not extremely large, and that individual and group 
differences within each class are so great that they become the primary 
problem requiring explanation. How does it happen, for example, that the 
same working-class background produces a law-abiding conservative worker, 
a politically conservative criminal, a company union leader, a C.I.O. leader, 
a Communist? Why does one middle-class individual join a service club 
while another becomes a supporter of Henry Wallace? Why is it that some, 
perhaps most, workers identify with the middle class or with the economic 
status quo , and some individuals with middle-class background identify with 
what they conceive to be the true interests of the working class? These may be 
not so much questions of actual class or group membership as questions of 
class or group identification — and “identification” is a psychological variable. 
An individual, in making his social identification, is determining not only his 
ideology, but also what he is to be like as a person. We shall have occasion 
to consider further, in the chapters that follow, the deeper emotional trends 
that help to determine the individuals group memberships and identifications. 

How close is the relation between conservatism and ethnocentrism in the 
various groups studied? A means for obtaining a preliminary answer to this 
question is to compare group means on PEC and on E (see Table 8(V)). 
Since most groups took the short E A scale, the E A means were used even for 
those groups which took the total E AB scale (see Chapter IV). The rank- 
order correlation between the PEC means and E A means for the fourteen 
groups was +.50, indicating a statistically significant but not very close re- 
lationship. In general, as the degree of group conservatism increases, the 
degree of ethnocentrism also increases. The four groups with conspicuously 
high E a means are the San Quentin Men (5.33), the Maritime School Men 
(4.95), the Employment Service Men Veterans (4.43), and the California 
Service Club Men (4.31). These groups ranked 2, 5, 3, and 1, respectively, 
on PEC. No groups were conspicuously low on E, the eight lowest groups 
having no means within the fairly narrow range of 3.64-3.92; the most liberal 
groups were among the least ethnocentric. The over-all E A mean was 4.13, 
almost identical to the over-all PEC mean of 4.19. (The E AB mean is some- 
what lower, partly because of sampling differences and partly because the 
E b items— four on Jews and one on Negroes— had lower means.) 

The correlation of ranks does not, however, tell the whole story. Many 
groups made a significantly higher mean on PEC than on E, or vice versa. 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 173 

Whether the group mean on PEC is higher than on E, or lower, seems to 
depend in large measure on the socioeconomic class of the group: the pre- 
dominantly middle-class groups tend to be lower on E than on PEC, while 
the working-class groups are, it appears, more ethnocentric than conservative. 
Consider the middle-class groups: the PEC and E means, respectively, for 
the Extension Testing Class Women are 4.33 and 3.77; for the George Wash- 
ington University Women, 4.30 and 4.04, for the California Service Club 
Men, 4.83 and 4.31; and similarly for the Middle-Class and Los Angeles 
Men and Women. Only one of these PEC-E differences is below the 5 per 
cent level of statistical significance. It will be recalled that in the Form 78 
and Form 60 samples, largely middle class, the level of conservatism was 
greater than the level of ethnocentrism. The opposite trend is found in the 
working-class (or marginal middle-class) groups. Thus the PEC and E 
means, respectively, are: for the San Quentin Men, 4.68 and 5.33; Working- 
Class Aden, 3.39 and 3.92; Working-Class Women, 3.25 and 3.91; Maritime 
School Men, 4.32 and 4.95; Employment Service Men Veterans, 4.36 and 
4.43. This leaves only the Psychiatric Clinic Men and Women, who are 
heterogeneous with respect to class and whose PEC and E means differ only 
slightly (o. 1-0.2). 

Several factors— not mutually exclusive— may help to explain these class 
differences. First, open prejudice is more accepted on a verbal level in the 
working class than in the middle class. The higher E means of the former 
may therefore reflect, in part, the verbal atmosphere rather than a difference 
in basic outgroup hostility. (This factor would not hold for the pro-ingroup 
items.) Then there is the previously discussed “pseudodemocratic fagade,” 
which is more characteristic of the middle than of the working class, and 
which the E-scale items probably only partially circumvented. Also, certain 
trends in liberal ideology may appeal to some workers not on a truly liberal 
basis but on a “class-ethnocentric” basis which is an aspect of general ethno- 
centrism. For example, some workers are strongly prounion and resentful 
of “bosses,” yet at the same time are anti-Negro, anti-foreigner, and con- 
servative regarding many political issues. 

All in all, the group data lead us to investigate further the relationship 
between ethnocentrism and conservatism, with an eye both to what makes 
the correlation relatively high and to what keeps it from being higher. 
These problems will be pursued further when we consider the correlations 
between the PEC and E scales, and the psychological connection between 
conservatism and ethnocentrism in the individual. But first we must complete 
the presentation of the PEC-scale data. 

Table 9(V) gives a summary of the item analysis of the Form 45-40 PEC 
scale. Data for the men and the women are summarized separately. The 
over-all mean for the women, 4.07, is significantly lower than that of 4.25 
for the men. The women were also, as noted in Chapter IV, slightly but sig- 



i74 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE 9 (V) 



MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS 

OF THE 

PEC SCALE 

ITEMS 




(FORMS 40 AND 

45) 




No. 

Item 

MEN'S GROUPS a (N 869) b 

WOMEN'S GROUPS 0 

(N 573) d 

Mean 

D.P. 

Rank 

Mean 

D.P. 

Rank 

3. 

(Labor unions) 

4.51 

3.16 

(4) 

4.67 

3.49 

(4) 

7. 

(American Way) 

4.90 

3.33 

(3) 

4.57 

3.98 

(1) 

11. 

(Government controls) 

4.19 

3.08 

(5) 

3.92 

2.97 

(5) 

14. 

(Ford and Morgan) 

3.75 

3.58 

(1) 

3.56 

3.90 

(2) 

17. 

(Economic security) 

3.93 

3.46 

(2) 

3.62 

3. 77 

(3) 

Mean per item e 

4.25 

3.32 


4.07 

3.62 


a The 

individual groups of 

men in 

this sample are 

as follows: San 

Quentin 


Men Prisoners (N = 110). Employment Service Men Veterans (N = 106). 
Maritime School Men (N = 343). "California Service Club Men (N = 63). 
Middle-Class Men (N = 69). Working-Class Men (N = 61). Los Angeles Men 
(N = 117). 

b The over -all N for the PEC scale (men) is 100 less than that for the E 
scale because two groups were omitted: (1) Of the 50 Psychiatric Clinic 
Men, only 29 took the regular Form 45; the others took a form equated for 
E and F, but not for PEC. Because of the small N, no PEC scale analysis 
was made on this group. (2) The 50 Working-Class Men and Women were used 
as a statistical group for analysis on the E scale because additional 
data on the total E scale were desired; but their F and PEC scales were 
not analyzed statistically. 

c The individual groups of women in this sample are as follows: Extension 
Testing Class Women (N = 59). George Washington University Women 
Students (N = 132). Psychiatric Clinic Women (N 45). Middle-Class 
Women (N = 154). Working-Class Women (N = 53). Los Angeles Women 
(N = 130). 

^This N is 26 less than the over-all N for women on the E and F scales 
because only 45 of the 71 Psychiatric Clinic Women took the regular 
Form 45. The remaining 26 took a form which was equated to Form 45 for 
E and F, but not for PEC. 

e In obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not 
weighted by N. 

nificantly less ethnocentric than the men. This may, however, be a differ- 
ence in the sample rather than in the total population, since we have no female 
groups comparable to the high-scoring San Quentin, Service Club, and 
Maritime School male groups. Moreover, as shown in Table 8(V), for all 
comparable sex groups (Psychiatric Clinic, Middle Class, Working Class, 
Los Angeles) the means for men and women are almostddentical. Since the 
sampling methods used were not primarily designed to determine the aver- 
age intensity of any opinions or attitudes in broader populations, it is perhaps 
safest not to draw inferences about the total male and female population. It 







POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 1 75 

can be said, however, that for groups of the general type represented here, 
no sex differences of practical significance seem to exist; and that differences 
among male groups and among female groups are much greater than the 
differences between males and females. 

The male and female subsamples are also very similar with regard to means 
and D. P.’s on the individual items. While the scale mean was lower in 
women, the relative standing of the item means was almost identical for the 
two sexes, the rank-order correlation being .90. Women were more con- 
servative than men on only one item (unions). A similar relation holds also 
for the D. P.’s, the rank-order correlation being .70. 

The general level of D. P.’s would, other things being equal, be slightly 
greater for a 5-item than for a 14-item scale, since each item contributes 
more to the total score. Therefore, the average D. P. of 3. 4-3. 5 for Forms 
45 and 40 is comparable or slightly superior to that of 2.1 for Forms 78 and 
60. All of the present items seem statistically adequate. Item 1 1 (Government 
controls over business) had the lowest D. P., but in view of the greater suc- 
cess of the “government function” items in earlier forms, improvement 
should not be difficult. While the five items can hardly claim to be considered 
a “scale,” they show sufficient internal consistency so that one may mean- 
ingfully speak of “total PEC score” and one may determine the relations 
between this and various other measures. 

The level of internal consistency of the PEC scale is indicated also by a 
correlational analysis made on a group of 5 17 University of California women 
students. 5 6 A mean r of -f-0.26 was found between each item and the sum of 
the remaining items, the range of r’s being -j-o.io to +0.33. The rank order 
of these items, according to the size of the item’s correlation with the sum 
of the others, was identical to the rank order of item D. P.’s for the combined 
women’s groups above (Table 9(V)). The correlations among individual 
items averaged +0.14, the range being +0.02 to +0.30. The highest correla- 
tion, 0.30, was between Item 7 (American Way ideal) and Item 14 (Ford 
and Morgan). Only three r’s were below .10 (the 1 per cent level of 
significance), and all of them involved Item 11 (Government controls). 
These correlations, while far below those for the E scale, indicate that the 
PEC scale meets the minimum requirements for its present uses, and that 
a scale of 20 or 30 such items might, without loss of breadth, achieve a re- 
liability in the neighborhood of .8. 

5. DISCUSSION: SOME PATTERNS OF CONTEMPORARY 
LIBERALISM AND CONSERVATISM 

The reliability and internal consistency of the PEC scales suggest, on the 
one hand, that liberalism and conservatism are relatively organized and meas- 
urable patterns of current politico-economic thought; and, on the other 

6 The group and procedure are discussed more fully in Chapters IV and VII. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


I 7 6 

hand, that within each of these broad patterns there is considerable subpat- 
terning, inconsistency, and simple ignorance. To ignore either the relative 
generality or the relative inconsistency would, it seems, lead to serious mis- 
understanding of the problem. More detailed exploration of the nature and 
deeper psychological meaning of these ideological trends, as expressed in 
the interviews, will be made in Chapter XVII, following presentation of the 
clinical material. However, at this point we ought briefly to consider, on 
the basis of the scale data and of some individual patterns of scale response, 
certain variations within liberalism and within conservatism. 

Liberalism was conceived not as a single, unitary attitude, but as an ideo- 
logical system containing a number of trends or components. The reliability 
and internal consistency of the initial forms of the scale show that these 
trends are interrelated significantly but imperfectly in the individual. The 
prototypic “liberal” is, according to our guiding conception, an individual 
who actively seeks progressive social change, who can be militantly critical 
(though not necessarily totally rejective) of the present status quo , who 
opposes or de-emphasizes numerous conservative values and beliefs regard- 
ing business success, rugged individualism, human nature, and the like, and 
who would diminish the power of business by increasing the power of labor 
and the economic functions of government. 

It is clear, however, that many individuals who are generally liberal do 
not exhibit some of the above trends. While some of the inconsistency— 
perhaps the largest part— is due to confusion resulting from lacks and dis- 
tortions in the press and other media of mass communication, part of it seems 
also to reflect deep-lying emotional trends of considerable intensity and 
resistance to change. The individual’s pattern of thought, whatever its con- 
tent, reflects his personality and is not merely an aggregate of opinions picked 
up helter-skelter from the ideological environment. 

One variant, particularly common in the groups tested, might be called 
the politically pacifistic liberal. The guiding idea here seems to be fear of 
concentration of social power. This individual, who feels keenly the injus- 
tice of the present social order and who sympathizes with labor and other 
subordinate groups, nevertheless cannot militantly support their strivings for 
greater power. He feels that “powerful unions are as dangerous as powerful 
business.” He is prone to emphasize the idea that unions are no longer 
weak in relation to organized industry, and he is likely therefore to accept, 
in one form or another, the conservative argument that unions are all right 
but their power must be limited. He would like to decrease the power of 
business but finds difficulty in directly opposing it-“we might, after all, be 
as bad as they are.” He believes in extending the economic functions of gov- 
ernment, perhaps even in some degree of nationalization of industry, but 
fear of government power often leads him to oppose liberal measures or to 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 1 77 

support halfway measures which accomplish little. Opposed to force, he tends 
to confuse force with militancy and to be indecisive, critical of both sides, 
overly compromising, inept at political action, shocked by the realities of 
political affairs. He is likely to make a middle rather than low score on the 
PEC scale, not out of true conservatism but rather out of inhibited liberal- 
ism; he has, one might say, a “liberal” utopia but he cannot fight for the social 
changes necessary to realize it. Critical of things as they are, yet afraid of 
change— hating to submit, yet unable to rebel— he cannot actively support 
the status quo , but he can do little to oppose it. 

We were not able to attempt a quantitative study of various types of left- 
wing ideology. In addition to militant and politically pacifistic liberalism, 
we should also have been interested in determining the existence and nature 
of other patterns such as “disillusioned liberalism,” “stereotyped (ticket) 
liberalism,” “revolutionary socialism,” and so on. Some leads for future study 
derived from the interview material are presented in Chapter XIX. 

The political right requires similar differentiation and study. The proto- 
typic “conservative,” in terms of the present scale, is one who supports the 
status quo and resists changes in existing politico-economic power arrange- 
ments, who supports conservative values and traditions, who believes that 
labor is properly subordinate to employer or management, and who wishes 
to minimize the economic functions of government in order that individual 
businessmen can, in free and equal competition, provide goods of maximum 
quality at minimum cost to the consumer. 

While this “traditional conservative” ideology is not uncommon today, 
the actual politico-economic situation has changed considerably from the 
one, of fifty or more years ago, to which the ideology refers. The individual 
small businessman or entrepreneur is no longer the primary economic unit; 
big business and group management have replaced the individual employer; 
the production process is more complex, organized, and impersonal; spe- 
cialization and mechanization threaten the individuality and the job satisfac- 
tion of worker and manager. As both labor and industry become more 
organized and more clear-cut social forces, the role of government be- 
comes increasingly an issue. The traditional conservative is in a dilemma. 
Shall he oppose the monopolistic trend of big business and want a return 
to rugged individualistic competition, with government having few eco- 
nomic functions (laissez-faire conservatism)? Shall he favor increased gov- 
ernment functioning as a means of preventing monopolistic practices, even 
though it mean increasing the power of labor (move toward liberalism)? 
Or shall he, basing everything on his allegiance to the symbol “business,” 
want government to be a force in the service of business as opposed to labor 
(move toward fascism)? Most conservatives seem still to be in the process 
of ideological adjustment along these and other lines. Much research re- 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


178 

mains to be done concerning new patterns of conservatism and concerning 
the psychological dispositions making some individuals more receptive to 
one pattern, others to another. 

It is proposed, then, that the PEC scale results can best be understood in 
terms of both general and specific factors. The general factors— over-all 
liberalism and conservatism— account for the significant reliability or con- 
sistency obtained, while the specific variations within the left and the right 
prevent the scale from attaining higher statistical standards. 

C. THE RELATION BETWEEN ETHNOCENTRISM 
AND CONSERVATISM 

The correlations of the Anti-Semitism and Ethnocentrism scales with the 
PEC scale are presented in Table io(V). The correlations range in value 
from .14 for the San Quentin Men to .86 for the Working-Class Women, 
but they fall for the most part at the level of .5-. 6 . Of the 29 correlation 
coefficients obtained, there are only 4 below .40, 5 above .70. These correla- 
tions of individual scores are consistent with the rank-order correlation of 
.50 between the group means on PEC and E (Forms 45 and 40). 

The data in Table 10 (V) indicate that PEC is less closely related to A-S 
than to the other components of E. Thus, in Form 78, PEC correlates sig- 
nificantly higher with E (exclusive of A-S) than with A-S (.59 to .43). In 
Form 60, where 4 of the 12 E-scale items deal with A-S, the average r is .52, 
midway between the two for Form 78. The results for the two groups taking 
both Forms 45 and 40 (Maritime School Men and Employment Service Men 
Veterans) show the same thing: PEC correlates higher with E A than with 
Ea+b (.60 to .49, and .41 to .38). It will be recalled that E A contains no A-S 
items, while 4 of the 5 E B items refer to Jews. Finally, the highest PEC-E 
correlations were obtained on Form 40, which contained only E A . The aver- 
age r of .66 on Form 40 is especially significant in view of the brevity of the 
two scales (5 items each). The explanation would seem to lie in the fact that 
these items represent the most general trends in their respective ideologies: 
in PEC, support of the status quo and conservative values; in E, generalized 
ingroup idealization and outgroup rejection. It is probably in broad trends 
such as these that conservatism and ethnocentrism overlap the most, because 
these ideological trends are rooted in the same deep-lying emotional disposi- 
tions (see Chapter VII). The specific factors which lower the correlation of 
A-S with PEC constitute an important problem for future research. 

There appear to be no consistent sex or class differences in the E-PEC 
correlation. In the University, Middle-Class and Working-Class groups (with 
presumably comparable male and female samples in each), the value of r is 
about 0.1 lower for men than for women; but in the Los Angeles group this 
trend is reversed, while in the Psychiatric Clinic Patients the difference is 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 


179 


TABLE 10 (V) 


CORRELATIONS OF THE A-S AND E SCALES WITH THE PEC SCALE (ALL FORMS) 




N 

Correlation 




E: PEC 

A-S: PEC 

A. 

Groups taking Form 78: 

Public Speaking Class Women 

140 

.52 

.49 


Public Speaking Class Men 

52 

.55 

.32 


Extension Psychology Class Women 

40 

.52 

.23 


Professional Women 

63 

.76 

.69 


Mean r a 

295 

. 59 

.43 

B. 

Groups taking Form 60: b 

University of Oregon Student Women 
University of Oregon and University 

47 

.48 




of California Student Women 
University of Oregon and University 

54 

.62 



of California Student Men 

57 

.48 



Oregon Service Club Men 

68 

.52 



Mean r a 

226 

.52 


c7 

Groups taking Form 45: c 

Extension Testing Class Women 

59 

.60 



San Quentin Men 

110 

• 14 d 



Psychiatric Clinic Women 

71 

. 53 d 



Psychiatric Clinic Men 

50 

.55 d 



Working-Class Men and Women 

50 

. 75 



Mean r a 

340 

.51 


D. 

Groups taking Form 40 : c 

George Washington University Women 

132 

.48 



California Service Club Men 

63 

. 64 



Middle-Class Men 

69 

.67 



Middle-Class Women 

154 

.76 



Working-Class Men 

61 

.74 



Working-Class Women 

53 

.86 



Los Angeles Men 

117 

.61 



Los Angeles Women 

130 

.52 



Mean r a 

779 

.66 


IT 

Groups taking Forms 4 0 and 45: 
Employment Service Men Veterans 


. 60 e 



(Form 40) 

55 



(Form 45) 

51 

.49 



Maritime School Men (Form 40) 

164 

. 41 e 



(Form 45) 

179 

.38 



Mean r a 

449 

.47 



Mean r for all groups taking 





Forms 40 and 45 

1568 

.57 



obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not weighted 
by N, and Zj. was not used. 

b It will be recalled that in Pbrm 60 the E scale contained 4 A-S items, there 
being no separate A-S scale. 

°PEC is correlated with E A in groups taking Form 40. with total E^g scale in 
groups taking Form 45. 

d Por the PEC scale in the Psychiatric Clinic groups, the number of women was 45, 
the number of men 29. due to a substitution of forms. 

^These correlations are based on the E A scores of subjects taking Porm 45 as well 
as those taking Form 40. 




180 the authoritarian personality 

negligible. The same holds for class differences: in the Working-Class Men 
and Women the correlations are very high (.74 and .86), but in other groups 
which draw heavily upon the working class, notably San Quentin and the 
Maritime School, the correlations are very low (.14 and .4). The reasons for 
the variations in the size of r seem to. lie more in the specific nature of the 
group than in its sex or class status. It is interesting in this connection that 
two groups in which the E-PEC correlation was very high, the Working 
Class Men (.74) and Women (.86) also had the two lowest PEC means (see 
Table 8(V)). We may hypothesize that the E-PEC correlation will be 
highest when, other things such as the S. D. being equal, the group contains 
a sizeable minority of strong liberals. Judging from some of the other groups, 
the number of strong conservatives has less influence on the correlation. We 
shall return to this question shortly. 

The general level of the E-PEC correlations demonstrates that ethnocen- 
tnsm and conservatism, as measured by the present scales, are significantly 
but imperfectly related. 7 In everyday terms, we may say that conservatives 
are, on the average, significantly more ethnocentric than liberals are. The 
more conservative an individual is, the greater the likelihood that he is ethno- 
centnc— but this is a probability and not a certainty. Since the existence of 
an affinity between these ideological patterns has often been observed previ- 
ously, the present correlations are perhaps less a startling discovery than an 
indication of the validity of the scales. To those who have been unaware of 
die E-PEC relationship, the significance of the correlations must be stressed. 
To those who tend to equate conservatism and ethnocentrism as psycho- 
logical trends in the individual, it must be pointed out that the correlations 
are far from perfect. Even with a much more reliable measure of PEC the 
correlation with E could hardly average over .70-a value inadequate’ for 
predictive purposes. It becomes necessary, then, to understand what pro- 
duces the close association between these ideological patterns in the indi- 
vidual, as well as what systematic factors-apart from ignorance or misinfor- 
mation-make the E-PEC correlation less than 1.0. 

A theoretical basis for the close tie between conservatism and ethnocen- 
trism is suggested by certain similarities in their major underlying trends. 
Support of the prevailing politico-economic ideology and authority is, ap- 
parently, often a part of the generalized ethnocentric tendency to submit to 
accepted authority in all areas of social life. Similarly, ethnocentric rejection 
of outgroups is expressed in the politico-economic sphere by resistance to 
social change and by the tendency to subsume progressive political ideologies 
under the general heading of “foreign” outgroups and ideas (threats to in- 
group authority). The interconnection between the two ideologies and the 
difficulty of separating them even for purposes of study are revealed by a 

° n th * Wh ° le ’ consistent with those of the other studies mentioned 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS l8l 

number of scale items. For example: “America may not be perfect, but the 
American Way has brought us about as close as human beings can get to a 
perfect society.” To support this idea is, it would seem, to express both 
politico-economic conservatism and the ingroup idealization so character- 
istic of ethnocentrism. The item, “The worst danger to real Americanism 
during the last 50 years has come from foreign ideas and agitators,” is another 
example of politicalized ethnocentrism: again we find moral stereotypy and 
externalization of blame for social problems onto the threatening outgroup. 

There are also theoretical reasons for expecting a relationship between 
liberalism and anti-ethnocentrism. Both tend to involve a critical attitude 
toward prevailing authorities and traditions. The identification with the 
masses (workers, “the common man,” “the weak and downtrodden”) so 
often a central theme in left-wing political ideology, finds expression also in 
opposition to ethnocentrism and outgroup suppression. Indeed, the forma- 
tion of leftist political views in youth often begins with a sense of the injus- 
tice of anti-Semitism or anti-Negroism; when sympathetic imagery of sub- 
ordinate groups is extended to include the working class, the transition from 
“group relations” to “politico-economic” ideology has begun. The further 
development of liberal-radical views is ordinarily based on imagery and atti- 
tudes identical to those underlying anti-ethnocentric ideology: opposition to 
hierarchy and to dominance-submission, removal of class and group barriers, 
emphasis on equalitarian interaction, and so on. 

We have also to consider the “correlation-lowering” factors. Why, in 
view of the theoretical argument above, is the E-PEC correlation not higher? 
The present data suggest, but are not adequate to test, several hypotheses. 
The correlation charts (scattergrams) for each sample reveal that extreme 
liberals (low scorers on PEC) are for the most part low as well on E. But 
the “middles” on PEC are extremely diversified with respect to standing on 
E. It is possible that the group which is low on E but middle on PEC consists 
largely of the “politically pacifistic” liberals discussed previously. Practically 
none of the subjects were low on PEC and high on E (ethnocentric liberals); 
such individuals would, however, be well worth intensive study. 

The high scorers on PEC are more variable on E than are the low scorers. 
While most of those high on PEC are also high on E, a considerable number 
are middle and a small but consistent percentage low on E (nonethnocentric 
conservatives). In other words, strong political liberalism is a pretty good 
indicator of anti-ethnocentrism, but political conservatism is less consistently 
related to ethnocentrism. 

In attempting to explain the variability of conservatives with respect to 
ethnocentrism, we are reminded of the distinction between “genuine” and 
“pseudo-” previously drawn with respect to patriotism and traditional- 
conventional values (Chapter IV). One can be politically conservative, just 
as one can be patriotic (in the sense of firm attachment to American culture 


182 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


and tradition), without being ethnocentric. We should like to use the term 
“ genuine conservative ” to refer to the individual with this broad pattern of 
thought. He is “genuine” because, whatever the merits of his political views, 
he is seriously concerned with fostering what is most vital in the American 
democratic tradition. He believes, for example, in the crucial importance of 
the profit motive and in the necessity of economic insecurity; but he wants 
the best man to win no matter what his social background. He is resistant 
to social change, but he can be seriously critical of the national and political 
ingroups and— what is more important— he is relatively free of the rigidity 
and deep-lying hostility characteristic of ethnocentrism. 

The ethnocentric conservative is the pseudo conservative, for he betrays 
in his ethnocentrism a tendency antithetical to democratic values and tradi- 
tion. He is the E-PEC “correlation raiser” because, as discussed above, his 
politico-economic views are based on the same underlying trends— submis- 
sion to authority, unconscious handling of hostility toward authority by 
means of displacement and projection onto outgroups, and so on— as his 
ethnocentrism. It is indeed paradoxical that the greatest psychological poten- 
tial for antidemocratic change should come from those who claim to repre- 
sent democratic tradition. For the pseudoconservatives are the pseudo- 
democrats, and their needs dispose them to the use of force and oppression 
in order to protect a mythical “Americanism” which bears no resemblance 
to what is most vital in American history. , 

An additional hypothesis may be proposed regarding individuals high on 
E but middle on PEC. These may well be pseudoconservatives who have 
kept up with changes in the actual politico-economic situation by making 
changes in traditional (individualistic) conservative ideology. They empha- 
size competitiveness as a value, yet they support the concentration of eco- 
nomic power in big business— the greatest single threat at present to the 
individual competing businessman. They emphasize economic mobility and 
the “Horatio Alger” myth, yet they support numerous forms of discrimina- 
tion that put severe limitations on the mobility of large sections of the popu- 
lation. They may also believe in extending the economic functions of 
government, not for humanitarian reasons but as a means of limiting the 
power of labor and other groups. 

This is not merely a “modern conservatism.” It is, rather, a totally new 
direction: away from individualism and equality of opportunity, and toward 
a rigidly stratified society in which there is a minimum of economic mobility 
and in which the “right” groups are in power, the outgroups subordinate. 
Perhaps the term “reactionary” fits this ideology best. Ultimately it is 
fascism. While certainly not a necessary sequel to laissez-faire conservatism, 
it can be regarded as a possible (and not uncommon) distortion of con- 
servatism— a distortion which retains certain surface similarities but which 
changes the basic structure into the antithesis of the original. Since most 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 1 83 

Americans are “middle on PEC,” it becomes crucial to understand the psy- 
chological dispositions which help to determine new ideological directions 
in the individual. 

The above distinction regarding ideological patterns within the political 
left and right are presented as hypotheses to help explain the scale results. 8 
If these hypotheses are not borne out, others will be needed. For it is clear 
that political ideologies do not fall neatly along a simple liberalism-conserva- 
tism dimension; that the relation between ethnocentrism and “conservatism” 
is extremely complex; and that the individual’s receptivity to political ideol- 
ogy, as to “group relations” ideology, is based to a large extent on deep- 
lying personality trends. 


D, VALIDATION BY CASE STUDIES: THE RESPONSES OF 
MACK AND LARRY ON THE PEC SCALE 

In an attempt to judge the validity of the PEC scale we may here, as in 
Chapters III and IV, compare the scale responses of Mack and Larry and 
consider them in relation to material from their interviews (Chapter II). The 
PEC-scale scores of these two subjects, the group mean, and the D. P. for 
each of the 16 PEC items included in Form 78 are shown in Table 1 1 (V). 


TABLE 11 (V) 


RESPONSES OF MACK AND LARRY ON THE PEC SCALE 







Group a 

Group a 

No. 

Item 

Mack 

Larry 

Mean 

D.P. 

1. 

(Value of dollar) 

6 

7 

6.10 

1. 16 

5. 

(Depressions) 

5 

1 

3,33 

2.76 

8. 

(Charity) 

3 

7 

5. 46 

1.48 

13. 

(Businessmen, artists) 

1 

1 

2.29 

1. 70 

15. 

(Middle of the road) 

7 

5 

4.35 

2. 90 

22. 

(Political candidate) 

7 

7 

6.38 

0. 32 

27, 

(Rebellious ideas) 

5 

6 

3.86 

2. 84 

36. 

(Gov’t, responsibility) 

2 

1 

3. 22 

3.01 

44. 

(Socialized medicine) 

2 

6 

2.38 

1.69 

52. 

(Taxes, corporations) 

2 

3 

3.66 

2.29 

61. 

(Economic security) 

6 

6 

3.75 

2.68 

63. 

(Gov’ t. interference) 

5 

1 

4.01 

2. 39 

68. 

(Unions stronger) 

6 

2 

4.58 

2.30 

71. 

(Ford, Morgan) 

7 

6 

5.30 

2. 00 

76. 

(Gov't, activity) 

2 

2 

3.32 

2. 76 

78. 

(Ability will tell) 

7 

6 

4. 74 

1.99 


Mean per item 

4.56 

4. 19 

4.17 

2.14 

a The 

group means and D.P.’s are 

based on 

all four 

groups taking Form 78. 


8 Further hypotheses, plus supporting evidence, are presented in Chapter XVII, which 
deals with the interview material. 






THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


184 

The two men are much more similar in their PEC-scale scores than was 
the case with their A-S and E scores. Larry’s mean score, 4. 19, is at the group 
mean and Mack’s, 4.56, is not very far above. When the group of Public 
Speaking Men to which these subjects belonged is considered by itself, Mack 
is just inside the high quartile, Larry is just below it. On n of the 16 items 
the scores of the two men do not differ by more than one point. Attention 
to the individual items, however, shows that the similarities are confined to 
certain areas of politico-economic ideology; in other areas there are sharp 
differences. 

Mack and Larry are most similar in their consistent support of general 
conventional-conservative values. Both agree, usually rather strongly, with 
Items 1 (Value of a dollar), 15 (Middle of the road), 22 (Political candidate), 
27 (Rebellious ideas), 71 (Ford, Morgan), and 78 (Ability will tell). This 
seems to be in keeping with the interviews, in which both men expressed the 
usual conservative criticisms of the New Deal. Both men, it appears, accept 
the view that a man’s getting ahead depends most of all upon his living 
according to the values of thrift, determination, work, honesty, conformity, 
and the like. 

Examination of the scores on other items, however, indicates that Mack 
and Larry differ with respect to the context in which their conservative 
values occur. For Mack the context appears to be one of upward social 
mobility on a class-ingroup basis, for Larry it appears to be one of nineteenth- 
century liberalism. This seems to be expressed in their wide disagreement 
on Items 5 (Depression) and 68 (Unions stronger). Mack’s belief that de- 
pressions are “only natural” can be interpreted as an expression of the broader 
idea that, in the nature of things, the benefits to be had in our society are 
insufficient to go around and that it is no more than proper that the major 
portion of them should go to the “right people,” that is, to an ingroup. This 
ingroup does not seem to include organized labor (Item 68) nor the various 
minority groups which he rejected in his responses on the E scale. This 
would appear to be another manifestation of Mack’s tendency, so marked 
in his interview, to make rigid ingroup-outgroup distinctions in his thinking 
about politico-economic matters as well as about social relations generally. 
For Larry, on the other hand, the value for getting ahead does not exclude 
the possibility of various other kinds of people getting ahead, for he seems 
to be thinking in terms of an expanding economy in which working men 
can have a strong role (Item 68) and in which depressions are unnecessary 
(Item 5). The absence of any ingroup-outgroup distinction, and optimism 
with respect to the possibilities of economic abundance were outstanding 
features of Larry’s interview. 

Neither man shows the usual conservative opposition to the government’s 
participation in the economic life of the nation: for Items 36 (Government 
responsibility), 44 (Socialized medicine), 52 (Taxes, corporations), 63 (Gov- 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 1 85 

ernment interference), and 76 (Government activity) the two men have the 
same low mean score of 2.60. Their reasons, however, seem to be different. 
When the responses to the total scale are considered, it appears that Mack 
deviates from true, laissez-faire conservatism by taking a stand further to 
the political right. The fact that he rejects labor unions and believes in the 
inevitability of depressions suggests that the strong central control which he 
favors is not to have as its function economic planning to benefit all of the 
people; rather, it seems, he is thinking of rule by an ingroup from which the 
majority of the population would be excluded. That he does reject the 
majority of the population has been seen in his responses to the E scale. When 
it is considered that he is antigovernment only when it comes to interference 
with the individual’s freedom “to make money and spend it as he likes” 
(Item 63) we are led to the conclusion that his idea of central control is a 
combination of government and the most powerful business interests. Thus 
it appears that Mack comes as close as he can, within the confines of the 16- 
item PEC scale, to expressing that pattern of pseudoconservatism which 
emerged from the analysis of his interview. 

Larry, on the other hand, deviates from the usual conservative position by 
moving further to the left. Not only does he insist upon the social obligations 
of government (Items 36 and 76) but he would accept limitations upon the 
profits of individuals and corporations (Items 52 and 63). These views can 
be reconciled with his strong conservative values and pro-business senti- 
ments, it seems, only by means of the belief that there is plenty for all, that 
it is the task of government to see to it that no one has too little or too much, 
and that this situation will permit people who, like himself, are willing to 
work hard, to get as much as they really need without causing others to suffer. 

It would appear from this analysis, and from the analysis of Mack’s and 
Larry’s interviews in Chapter II, that the difference of 0.37 in their PEC- 
scale means is not great enough to represent the actual distance between 
them on a right vs. left dimension of politico-economic ideology. However, 
as the discussion in the preceding section has shown, the differences between 
pseudoconservatism, which we find in Mack, and genuine conservatism as 
represented by Larry are qualitative as well as quantitative, and it is to the 
credit of the PEC scale that it pointed out these differences while indicating 
at the same time that Mack is somewhat more extreme in a quantitative sense. 

E. THE RELATION BETWEEN ETHNOCENTRISM AND 
MEMBERSHIP IN VARIOUS POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC 

GROUPINGS 

We have considered in previous sections the nature of political ideologies 
as measured by the PEC scales, and the relation of these ideologies to ethno- 
centrism. The data also revealed numerous group differences in degree of 



1 86 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


ethnocentrism. It was therefore natural to ask next: How do various political 
and economic groupings differ with respect to ethnocentrism? Information 
on such groupings (political party preference, parents’ preference, organiza- 
tion memberships, income level, etc.) was obtained on the front page of the 
questionnaire, so that it was possible to compute the mean (average) E score 
for each group. 9 

We may consider first the relation between ethnocentrism and political 
group preference. 

Political group preference was determined by means of several questions. First: 
“What political party or group do you like best?” Second: “How do you feel 
about each of these political groups? Democrats (Anti-New Deal), Democrats 
(New Deal), Willkie-type Republicans, Traditional Republicans.” In each case 
the subject was asked to check one of four choices: agree much, agree, disagree, 
disagree much. On the basis of his pattern of response to these questions, each 
subject was assigned a single “group preference” by two raters working together 
(semi-independent judgments). Each subject could be placed with relative easfc 
into one or another of the following categories: (i) “Total” Democrats (support- 
ing both factions within the party); (2) Anti-New Deal Democrats; (3) New 
Deal Democrats; (4) Willkie Republicans; (5) Traditional Republicans; (6) 
“Total” Republicans (supporting both factions); (7) New Deal Democrats, 
Willkie Republicans (supporting these two groupings and opposing the others, 
without indicating specific party preference; (8) Communists; (9) Socialists; 
(10) P.A.C. (National Citizens and C.I.O. Political Action Committee); (11) 
Undecided (wrote in “undecided” to first question, omitted the second); (12) 
Anti-all parties; (13) None, nonpartisan (gave this answer to first question, 
omitted the second); (14) Self -contradictory (e.g., supported Traditional Repub- 
licans and New Deal Democrats, gave no over-all party preference); (15) Blank. 

Table 12 (V) gives the number of cases (N) and the average A-S or E 
score for each political grouping, as well as for each sample tested and for the 
group of samples taking each form of the questionnaire. It is thus possible 
to compare, say, the New Deal Democrats in one sample with the other 
political groupings in that sample, or with the over-all totals for all New 
Dealers tested, or with the over-all totals for all subjects tested. 10 

The N’s and means in the bottom row (horizontal) may be examined first. 
The ratio of Democrats (columns 1-3) to Republicans (columns 4-5) is 
roughly 10 to 7, a value which approximates the registration figures in the 
1944 California elections. However, the proportion of New Deal Democrats 
and of “combined liberal groups” (column 17) is unduly large. It seems 
safe to conclude that the present sample shows a slight but significant bias 

9 It would have been an important additional validation of the PEC scales to show 
differences among these groups with respect to PEC. Unfortunately, limitations of time 
prevented this further step. 

10 It will be noted that group-membership data was not statisticized for several of the 
groups tested (approximately one-third of the total N), due to time limitations. However, 
the groups in Table 12 (V) appear to be a fairly representative selection of the total sample. 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 1 87 

in a liberal direction— a sampling factor which tends to lower the over-all 
E mean. 

The various groupings appeared to fall into tivo clearly differentiated 
categories on the basis of average degree of ethno centrism. First, the “ con- 
servative ” category (column 16: Total Democrats, Anti-New Deal Demo- 
crats, Traditional Republicans, Total Republicans), with E means ranging 
from 4.17 to 4.72 and averaging 4.39. Second, the “ liberal ” category (New 
Deal Democrats, Willkie Republicans, New Deal-Willkie combined, Com- 
munists, Socialists, P.A.C.), with E means ranging from 1.25 to 3.60 and 
averaging 3.41. The difference of 0.98 between the liberal and conservative 
categories is statistically very significant (far above the 1 per cent level). 11 

The rank order of the individual groupings , in terms of E mean , is similar 
to their rank order on a right-left political dimension. The traditional wings 
of the Democratic and Republican parties are the most conservative as well 
as the most ethnocentric (E means of 4.2 to 4.7). The New Deal Democrats 
and the Willkie Republicans, representing in the main a slightly left-of- 
center political position, have a similar stand on ethnocentrism (means of 
3.6 and 3.5). Interestingly enough, those who support both the New Deal 
and Willkie, without making an over-all party choice, have a much lower 
E mean of 2.4— an indication perhaps that greater political sophistication in 
liberals is accompanied by greater militancy regarding democratic group 
relations. The Socialists (those who gave this as their party preference, re- 
gardless of their views on the other groupings) were similar to the previous 
group with a mean of 2.6. The most militantly anti-ethnocentric groups were 
the P.A.C. and the Communists, with E means of 2.0 and 1.25 respectively. 

The great difference between the “liberal” and “conservative” categories, 
as well. as the rank order of the individual groupings, offer important evi- 
dence for the validity of the E scale and the E-PEC correlations reported 
above. The relationship between ethnocentrism and liberal-conservative 
group membership is very similar to that between ethnocentrism and liberal- 
conservative ideology in the individual. There is, on the average, a syste- 
matic relation between E, PEC, and political group preference, to the extent 
of a correlation of approximately .5. 

Once again, both the group trend and the individual differences must be 
emphasized. The relationships, though significant, are far from perfect. 
There is, for one thing, considerable individual variability within each group- 

11 Critical ratios have not been computed for the various group differences discussed here. 
The following rules of thumb may be used in estimating the significance of the differences: 
Assume that the Standard Deviation for any grouping is equal to the S. D. for the sample 
containing it. This estimate is a maximal one so that any errors will tend to lower spuriously 
the value of the C. R. obtained. For groups with N’s of about 50 each, differences of 0.6 are 
likely to be significant at the 5 percent level; when the N’s are 100, a difference of 04 is 
adequate. These approximate standards hold for all tables in this section. An additional 
argument for the significance of these differences is their relative consistency from group 
to group. 



1 88 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE 12 (V) 

BEAN A-S OR E SOORBS a FOR GROUPS SHOWING VARIOUS OVER- ALL POLITICAL PARTY PREPEREJiCES 


■3 

<D 

a 

» -4-> 
<D 

£1 


. 2 .2 

it 


•a 

e 


3 § 

L . O 


Q Q , 


83 

Z & 


Group 

N Mean 

N Mean 

CO 

N 

Mean 

N Mean 

tn 

N Mean 

so 

N Mean 

t* 

N 

CO 

Mean N 

Mean 

Groups taking Form 78: 

U. C. Public peaking Class 
Women 

6 3.63 

4 3.83 

28 

3. 11 

39 3.00 

13 4. 19 

34 3.66 

0 

— 0 


U. C. Public leaking Class 

Men 

0 — 

3 5.07 

17 

3. 25 

11 3. 33 

4 4. 18 

6 3. 88 

8 

2 10 0 


Extension Psychology Class 
Women 

1 3.80 

6 3.70 

11 

2. 57 

7 3. 39 

4 3. 30 

2 5. 35 

0 

-- 0 


Professional Women 

0 -- 

1 6.00 

30 

2.06 

12 3. 43 

3 2.63 

8 3.43 

0 

— 0 

-- 

Totals 

7 3.66 

14 4. 19 

86 

2.70 

69 3. 17 24 3.84 

50 3.72 

8 

2. 10 0 

— 

Groups taking Form 60: 

Univ. of Oregon Student Women 

2 3.32 

2 3. 24 

14 

2. 73 

6 3. 14 

4 4.46 

13 4. 28 

3 

2.77 0 


Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of 
California Student Women 

3 4.59 

4 4. 15 

19 

2.95 

9 3.26 

1 2. 49 

14 3. 24 

2 

2. 37 0 


Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of 
California Student Men 

2 2.78 

2 3.07 

12 

2.95 

9 2.08 

6 3.45 

10 3.67 

7 

2.32 0 


Totals 

7 3.71 

8 3.70 

45 

2. 88 

24 2.79 

11 3.73 

37 3.72 

12 

2.44 0 

-- 

Groups taking Form 45: 

Maritime School Men 

17 4.41 

16 4.49 

74 

4. 32 

12 3.88 

13 5.08 

12 4. 54 

3 

3. 23 1 

1. 30 

Psychiatric Clinic Men 

6 4. 12 

0 — 

20 

3.97 

2 3.55 

7 4.27 

3 3.70 

1 

1.30 1 

1. 30 

Psychiatric Clinic Women 

7 4.74 

3 4.07 

26 

3. 51 

2 4. 20 

5 4.54 

5 3. 28 

2 

1.80 1 

LOO 

San Qjentin Men b 

19 4.44 

5 4.74 

45 

4.60 

6 4.83 

3 5.90 

3 4. 50 

0 

— 0 


Totals 

30 4.43 

19 4.42 

120 

4. 08 

16 3.88 

25 4.74 

20 4. 10 

6 

2.43 3 

1. 20 

Groups taking Form 40: 

Geo. Washington Univ. Women 

13 4.37 

17 4.86 

44 

3. 83 

5 3.48 

9 5.49 

14 4. 14 

1 

3.80 0 


Maritime School Men 

21 5. 10 

15 5. 11 

69 

4.95 

4 3.85 

5 4.84 

15 5.60 

2 

5. 80 0 


Middle- Class Women 

0 — 

4 3.35 

43 

2. 76 

28 4.36 

11 6.00 

32 4.51 

10 

1.50 2 

1 . JO 

Middle-Class Men 

4 6.30 

0 — 

16 

2.51 

9 4.07 

10 4. 34 

10 4.96 

3 

2.73 1 

1. 20 

Working-Class Men 

8 4.52 

0 — 

25 

3. 70 

1 4. 20 

0 — 

3 4.87 

2 

3. 70 3 

1. 40 

Totals 

46 4.90 

36 4.79 

197 

3.86 

47 4. 17 35 5. 63 

74 4.73 

18 

2. 56 6 

1. 27 

Over- all totals 

90 4.55 

77 4.48 

448 

3.60 

156 3.49 

95 4.72 

18 1 4. 17 

44 

2.43 9 

1. 25 


arhe following scales were used in the various forms: Form 78: A-S scale (10 items); Fbrm 60: 
E scale (12 items); Form 45: E scale ( 10 items); Fora 40: E scale (5 items). 


&The San Qjentin group was not included in obtaining the totals. The means for this group 
were so much larger than those of the others, for reasons which seemed to have little to do 
with party preference, that their inclusion would distort the over- all picture. 


ing, and there is much variation in group mean from one sample to the next. 
The New Deal Democrats, for example, obtained E means ranging from 
2.06 to 4.95 in the various samples tested. Moreover, political preference is 
much more closely related to ethnocentrism in some groups than in others. 
In the middle-class groups the relation is much closer than in working-class 
groups such as the Maritime School Men or San Quentin Men. Indeed, the 
San Quentin data were so atypical that they were not included in the over- 
all totals; for further discussion see Chapter XXI. The great variability 
obtained is a warning against stereotypy in thinking about groups. Members 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 1 89 


m 

■3 


a 

< 

ol 


s 

■H 

a 

a 

3 

i 


2 ? 

o 

o 


8 

8 


S 

2 


£ in 
o> 

c d 

8 . 


s'i 

J=i 3 


'3 C* 


■3” 

C (0 

22 

5 So 

O 6t rt 


w O 

Oi 

CM 

CO 



<g 

r* 


N Mean N Mean 

N Mean N Mean 

N Mean 

N Mean 

N Mean 

N 

Mean N 

Mean N Mean S.D. 


2 1.15 

0 

" 

4 

3.05 

0 

— 

8 

2.88 

0 


2 3. 70 

(57) 

3.79 

(69) 

2.99 

140 3.32 

1.43 

3 3.67 

0 

- 

0 

- 

0 

~ 

0 

- 

0 


0 

-- 

(13) 

4. 25 

(39) 

3. 07 

52 3.34 

1. 48 

0 — 

0 


2 

5. 15 

0 

-- 

4 

2.30 

0 

— 

5 

4. 24 

(13) 

3. 84 

(18) 

2.89 

42 3.40 

1.36 

2 1.40 

0 

-- 

2 

2. 25 

0 

— 

3 

2. 40 

0 


2 

1.65 

(12) 

3.44 

(44) 

2.40 

63 2.57 

1. 37 

7 2.30 

0 

" 

~8 

3. 38 

~0 

— 

7i" 

2.63 

~ 


~9 

3. 54 

(95) 

3.82 (170) 

2. 85 

297 3. 18 

1. 46 

1 1. 16 

0 

- 

0 

- 

0 

- 

2 

3. 74 

0 


0 

- 

(21) 

4. 13 

(24) 

2.77 

47 3.42 

1. 38 

1 1.83 

0 

- 

0 

- 

0 

- 

1 4.57 

0 


0 

- 

(22) 

3. 56 

(31) 

2.97 

54 3. 24 

L 29 

2 3.03 

0 

— 

0 

- 

0 

- 

7 

3. 17 

0 


0 

- 

(20) 

3.45 

(30) 

2. 55 

57 2.93 

1.25 

4 2.26 

0 

" 

0 

-- 

0 

-- 

10 

3.42 

0 


T 

— 

(63) 

3.71 

(85) 

2. 76 

158 3. 18 

1.31 

3 3.20 

0 


7 

4.86 

1 

3.30 

0 

— 

13 4.47 

6 

4.35 

(58) 

4.61 

(93) 

4. 16 

178 4. 36 

1.60 

2 1.65 

0 

— 

3 

2.40 

2 

2.70 

0 

— 

2 

4. 05 

1 

4.60 

(16) 

4. 11 

(26) 

3. 55 

50 3.67 

1.59 

1 1.80 

1 

1.00 

5 3.34 

5 

3. 20 

0 

— 

2 

3.65 

6 

4. 57 

(20) 

4. 23 

(33) 

3.25 

71 3.65 

L 60 

1 2.80 

0 

— 

7 

4. 64 

5 4.52 

0 

-- 

4 

3.05 

12 

5. 11 

(30) 

4. 64 

(52) 

4.59 

110 4. 61 

1.28 

6 2.45 

1 

1. 00 

15 

3.86 

8 

3.09 

0 

-- 

17 

4.32 

13 

4.47 

(94) 

4.44 

(152) 

3. 86 

299 4.07 

1.63 

1 2.80 

3 

L 13 

9 

3.04 

0 

.. 

12 

3. 93 

0 

.. 

4 

4. 10 

(53) 

4.66 

(54) 

3. 63 

132 4.04 

1.58 

1 5.60 

1 3.40 

10 

5. 28 

5 

5.64 

0 

— 

10 

5.44 

6 4.60 

(56)- 

5. 21 

(77) 

4.90 

164 5.08 

1.76 

3 2.07 

2 2.40 

1 

2.80 

2 

3.70 

9 

2.51 

4 

5. 15 

3 4.73 

(47) 

4. 76 

(88) 

3.06 

154 3.64 

1.96 

1 5.98 

2 

1. 00 

2 3.50 

2 

4.80 

7 4.57 

1 

1. 20 

1 

1.20 

(24) 

4.92 

(32) 

2.94 

69 3.89 

2.08 

4 2.45 

2 3.90 

1 

5. 00 

0 

— 

5 

4.56 

2 

5. 50 

3 

3. 47 

(ID 

4.62 

(37) 

3.40 

59 3.83 

1.72 

10 3. 02 

10 

2. 14 

23 

4. 13 

9 

5.02 33 

3. 78 

17 

5. 13 

17 

4. 11 

(191) 

4.88 

(288) 

3.69 

578 4. 19 

1.90 

27 2.60 

11 

2.04 

46 

3.91 

17 

4. 11 

58 

3.42 

34 

4. 73 

39 

4. 10 

(443) 

4.39 

(695) 

3.41 

1332 3. 82 



°N for several of the present groups is different, by one or two subjects from the N given for 
the same groups in Tables 1*11 (V), If an N in Tables 12-20 (V) is smaller than the N for the 
corresponding group in Tables 1-11 (V), it is because one or two subjects who responded to 
the PEC scale left blank the whole of page l of the questionnaire. In one instance (Extension 
Class Women), two more subjects were available for the analysis of group membership than for 
the analysis of scale responses: their questionnaires came in late, after the statistics on 
scale responses were completed, but still in t.ime to figure in the analysis of grot© memberships. 


of any given political group are not “all alike”; and the fact that an indi- 
vidual belongs to a particular political group is, in most cases, an insufficient 
basis for predicting his standing on E. 

These intra- and intergroup variations suggest that group membership is 
not in itself the major determinant of ideology in the individual. It would 
appear, rather, that different individuals support a political group for dif- 
ferent reasons, and that we must understand why an individual chooses to 
support one group rather than another one. It is incorrect, or at least inade- 
quate, to say that an individual is prejudiced because he is an Anti-New Deal 



19° TH E AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

Democrat. He may be an Anti-New Dealer because he was ethnocentric to 
start with, or, more likely, both the ideology and the group membership 
must be explained in terms of more basic psychological and social factors. 
Consideration of these factors may help to explain why some anti-New 
Deal Democrats are not ethnocentric, and why some New Dealers are. 

What of those who profess no preference for any political group (Table 
12 (V), columns 1 1— 15) ? The results for these groups are difficult to inter- 
pret, but they are suggestive for further inquiry. Four of these groups, the 
“undecided,” “against all parties,” “self-contradictory” and “blank,” with 
means of 3.9 to 4.7, are above the over-all mean of 3.8, while those who 
consider themselves “nonpartisan” are relatively low on E, with a mean of 
3.4. Perhaps the most general conclusion to be drawn is that political con- 
fusion and indifference, as well as opposition to “politics,” are associated 
with greater-than-average ethnocentrism. Since these subjects constitute 
some 10-15 P er cent °f the present sample, and at least that percentage of the 
American population, they merit more thorough study. 

It was possible indirectly to approach the question of parental influence 
on subject’s ideology by asking for the political party preference of father 
and of mother. In Table 13 (V) the subjects are arranged in groups accord- 
ing to father’s political party preference, and the E mean for each group is 
shown. 12 The offspring of Republicans are, on the average, slightly less 
ethnocentric than the offspring of Democrats, the E means being 3.41 and 
3.68, respectively. Assuming an S. D. of 1.5 for each group, this difference 
is significant at the 5 per cent level. 

These data suggest what everyday observation has often seemed to indi- 
cate, namely, that people do not necessarily believe what their parents tell 
them. This hypothesis is neither original nor profound— although we believe 
that it has profound implications for the understanding of the formation of 
ideology. It contradicts another commonly held theory, namely that one 
learns mainly by imitation. The “imitation” theory expects a high correla- 
tion between parents’ ideology and offspring’s ideology, on the assumption 
that one “naturally” (that is, imitatively) takes over parental ideology rela- 
tively intact. The present data, however, as well as those of many previous 
studies, e.g., those discussed by Murphy, Murphy and Newcomb (85), sug- 
gest that the formation of ideology in the individual is a selective, dynamic 
process, in which any ideological pressure from the environment will be 
accepted or rejected on the basis of the needs and strivings of the individual. 
Approaching ideological learning in this way, we ask, for example: What 
kinds of personalities take over intact the views of their parents or other 

12 Similar data were obtained in terms of mothers’ political preference. These data are 
not presented here since identical trends were revealed. A theoretical reason for focusing 
on the father is that politics in the United States seems still to be largely a “paternal” con- 
cern, just as religion is for the most part the function of the mother in the home. 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 

I I o-l sssslsl & a a IS I 88818 I . I 


o « N w C~ 

^ in ^ to gs 


CO CO M CO 


CO t- CO CO CO 
oj ^ CO CO M 


S 8 8 


r- co in in I o 


Tt< <N O ’-I I C 


CO I I I CO 
M ' ' N 


, , ?a 


« O O ^ I Cl 


CJ CO M C- 


CJ CO CO CO 


flu a) CQ 

a § -a 

o -th -e 


■ 0> o o 

u S ’I 

o c c 

c*. ^ -H 

w> o o o 

c J3 

-•*0 0 0 03 

■* W ■rt 'H p-j 

o ii ii aS 

a> -*-» 4J -u 

E cJ d O 


a^he following scales were used in the various forms: Form 78: A-S Scale (10 items) 

Form 60: E Scale (12 items) 
Form 45: E Scale (io items) 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


I 9 2 

authorities and under what psychological conditions do we find various forms 
of change or rebellion? 

Questions such as those above were raised by the tendency for Republican 
fathers (presumably more ethnocentric) to have less ethnocentric offspring 
than did the Democratic fathers. This suggested the hypothesis that “dis- 
agreement with father” is related to anti-ethnocentrism, regardless of father’s 
political views (see also Levinson and Sanford (71); Murphy, Murphy and 
Newcomb (85)). The hypothesis was tested by comparing subject’s and 
father’s political preference. The results are presented in Table i4(V). The 
group of subjects whose political preference was the same as their fathers’, 
regardless of party, had a much higher mean (4.05) than the group of sub- 
jects who differed from their fathers (mean of 3.04). The difference is ex- 
tremely significant; indeed, it is almost identical with the difference between 
groups based on liberal vs. conservative party preference (Table 12 (V)). In 
other words, a person’s standing on E can be predicted as closely on the 
basis of his agreement or disagreement with his father’s political party prefer- 
ence ( without knowing subject’s or father’s politics ) as it can on the basis 
of the subject’s actual party preference , 13 This is important indirect evidence 
in favor of hypotheses raised previously (Chapters III and IV), namely, that 
ethnocentrists tend to be submissive to ingroup authority, anti-ethnocentrists 
to be critical or rebellious, and that the family is the first and prototypic 
ingroup. The individual’s relation to parental authority, particularly his dis- 
position to be submissive or critically independent, appears to be a basic 
personality trend which partially determines his political party preference 
and his ideology about group relations. 

Data on the average degree of ethnocentrism in various organizations 
taking Form 40 are presented in Table 15 (V). The low-scoring groups, 
with E means of 1.20 to 2.41, are the Labor School men and women, the 
League of Women Voters, and the Unitarian Church. It is interesting that 
the working-class Labor School members have an E mean which is con- 
siderably higher than that for the middle-class members (2.4 to 1.2), and 
slightly higher than that for the (middle-class) League of Women Voters 
and the Unitarian Church. Apparently the middle-class leftists have identified 
not only with the working class (in their political ideology) but also with 
subordinate groups generally. There is, however, some likelihood that 
working-class individuals may support left-wing political groups without a 
full acceptance of the underlying social ideology; that is to say, they may 

13 The difference would probably have been even greater had we known the fathers’ 
party-faction preference rather than the simple party preference. Thus, all New Deal 
Democratic subjects who gave father’s preference as “Democrat” were grouped under 
“same preference as father.” It is likely, however, that in many of these cases the father was 
an anti-New Deal Democrat and that thus a real difference between father and son— one 
which we should expect to accompany lower E scores— was concealed. This inadequacy 
in measurement makes the obtained differences all the more impressive. 



Relation between Subject’s and Father’s Political Preference Relation between Subject’s and Father’s Political Preference 



a The following scales were used in the various forms: 

Form 78: A-S Scale (10 items) Form 45: E Scale (10 items) 

Form 60: E Scale (12 items) Form 40: E Scale (5 items) 

"The San Quentin group was not included in the over-all total. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


T 94 

engage in liberal group activity more on the basis of economic self-interest 
than on that of a complete anti-ethnocentric point of view. This is also shown 
by the fact that the members of the United Electrical Workers, a militant 
C.I.O. union, had an E mean of 3-45, a value slightly higher than that (3.12) 
for the Parent-Teachers’ Association group containing mostly middle-class 
members with a relatively high education level. These results suggest that 
union membership and college education are in themselves important forces, 
but by no means guarantees, against ethno centrism. The basic question, it 

TABLE 15 (V) 

MEAN E SCORE FOR VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS IN 


THE FORM 40 SAMPLE 


Middle-Class Women 



Group: 

N_ 

Mean 

1. 

Parent-Teachers’ Association 

46 

3. 13 

2. 

Labor School (middle-class membership) 

11 

1.20 

3. 

Suburban Church Group 

29 

5.23 

4. 

Unitarian Church Group 

15 

2.32 

5. 

League of Women Voters 

17 

2.06 

6. 

Upper Middle-Class Women’s Club 

36 

5.05 


Over-all totals 

154 

3. 64 


Standard Deviation 


1.96 


Middle-Class Men 



Group: 

A 

Mean 

1. 

Labor School (middle-class membership) 

9 

1.27 

2. 

Parent-Teachers' Association 

29 

3. 12 

3. 

Suburban Church Group 

31 

5.38 


Over-all totals 

69 

3.89 


Standard Deviation 


2.08 


Working-Class Men 



Group: 

JL 

Mean 

1. 

United Electrical Workers (CIO) (old members) 

12 

3.45 

2. 

Labor School 

15 

2. 41 

3. 

International Longshoremen’ s and Warehousemen’ s 




Union (CIO) (new members) 

26 

4. 60 

4. 

United Seamen' s Service 

8 

4. 74 


Over-all totals 

61 

3.83 


Standard Deviation 


1.72 


would seem, is whether the individual has been able to assimilate the broader 
democratic ideology supplied by the group environment— and here again we 
find wide individual differences in receptiveness to democratic thinking. 
That the union has been at least partially successful in its educative effort 





POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 1 95 

is suggested by the fact that the New Members Class of the International 
Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union (I.L.W.U.) has an E mean of 
4.60 (Table i5(V)). Because of the small number of cases, the large differ- 
ence of 1. 1 5 between the new I.L.W.U. members and the old U.E.W. 
members is probably not statistically significant; but if it should be borne 
out in further studies, it would indicate that certain unions, at least, are doing 
a great deal to combat ethnocentrism. 

The highest scoring groups, with E means of 5.05 to 5.38 (significantly 
higher than any other middle-class groups), are the Suburban Church men 
and women, 14 and the Upper Middle-Class Women’s Club. Since neither of 
these groups is organized primarily or explicitly on the basis of ethnocentric 
ideology, their relative uniformity in this respect supports the hypothesis 
that ethnocentrism is correlated with patterns of ideology in other areas. 
The striking difference of 3.0 points between the E means of the Unitarian 
and Suburban Churches suggests that similar differences might well be found 
in the content of their religious ideologies; but these issues must await con- 
sideration of the over-all material on religion (Chapter VI). Similarly, what 
characterizes the Women’s Club as compared, for example, with the League 
of Women Voters, is not its actual class or educational level, but psycho- 
logical trends such as upper-class identification, upward economic mobility, 
conservative values, and the like. Moreover, it is not likely that membership 
in the group caused deep-lying personality trends such as these in the mem- 
bers, but rather that individuals with such dispositions gravitate toward this 
group— or, indeed, organize it in the first place— rather than toward the 
League of Women Voters or the Oakland Labor School. While no intensive 
case studies could be obtained from the Women’s Club, because of resistance 
to such “investigation,” the relation of the above and similar trends to ethno- 
centrism was studied in other groups and is reported in the chapters which 
follow. 

Mean E scores for the various maritime unions, as represented in the Mari- 
time School, are presented in Table i5(V) These results should probably 
be regarded as suggestive rather than conclusive, in view of the small N in 
each group and the fact that this sample is above the maritime union average 
in intelligence (AGCT score) and educational level, and probably in class 
level and economic aspiration. Among the well-represented unions, the^ 
lowest E mean (4.12) is made by the National Maritime Union (C.I.O.), s 
which is also the most militantly left-wing. The most ethnocentric of the f 
larger groups are the Sailor’s Union of the Pacific (A.F.L.) and the Sailor’s j 
International Union (A.F.L. ), with means of 4.97 and 4.81 respectively; both 
of these unions tend to be politically conservative and to be strongly anti- 

14 This interdenominational church is in a small town near Berkeley, California. It has 
several suburban features: it contains a number of small industries; many residents com- 
mute to Berkeley and San Francisco, and it is not culturally or economically isolated. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


196 

C.I.O. and anti-Communist. The Marine Firemen, Oilers and Wipers (Inde- 
pendent), with a mean of 4.24 is only slightly higher than the National 
Maritime Union; that this finding is valid is suggested by the fact that the 
M.F.O.W. actively joined with the C.I.O. a few years ago during a period 
of waterfront labor-management strife. 

When the various union groups are combined into major categories, the 
following order is obtained (from most to least ethnocentric): blank or 
“none” (4.94), combined A.F.L. (4.79), combined C.I.O. (4.41), and com- 
bined Independent (4.30). While union membership, particularly in a C.I.O. 
or independent union, appears to play a significant role in decreasing ethno- 
centrism, there is clearly much that remains to be done. The National Mari- 
time Union, for example, can take pride in having the lowest of the obtained 
means, but the value of 4.12 indicates only a 50-50 balance around the 
neutral point-still a long way from the democratic principles of its educa- 
tional program and its constitutional regulations. It would be of considerable 
social as well as theoretical significance to understand why intensive anti- 
prejudice programs such as that of the N.M.U. are not more successful, and 
to determine how they might be improved. 

The Form 40 data in Table i6(V) differ from the Form 45 data in two 
important respects: the over-all E mean is higher (5.08 to 4.34)? an( ^ the 
differences among the various unions are smaller. The differences are due 
in part to the fact that the Form 45 data are based on the 10-item E A b scale, 
while Form 40 contained the 5-item E A scale. The E A mean for the Form 45 
sample was 4.82 (Chapter IV, Table 17, C), a value slightly but not signifi- 
cantly lower than the Form 40 E A mean of 5.08. However, the Form 45 E B 
subscale (of which four items deal with anti-Semitism) had a mean of only 3.85, 
and the E A -E B correlation, corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula, was 
only .73. It would appear, then, that the two samples are similar with respect 
to the opinions and attitudes in E A (Negroes, foreigners, zootsuiters, patriot- 
ism). Moreover, the greater interunion differences on Form 45 than on Form 
40 are probably due to the E B items in Form 45; that is, the unions differ 
more with respect to anti-Semitism than with respect to other forms of 
prejudice. For example, the N.M.U. mean for Form 45 is 3.76, conspicuously 
lower than the sample mean of 4.34; but the N.M.U. Form 40 mean of 4.87 
is only slightly lower than the sample mean of 5.08. While sampling differ- 
ences and other uncontrolled factors probably influenced these results, the 
possibility is raised that the N.M.U. educational program has been less suc- 
cessful in combating some forms of prejudice (E A ) than others (E B ). 15 

Our attempts to determine income-class level and background of the sub- 
jects were relatively unsuccessful for several reasons. It was not possible to 

15 Had time permitted, it would have been worthwhile to obtain separate Ea and Eb 
means for each union group in the Form 45 sample, and to compare these with the Form 
40 data. 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 1 97 

TABLE 16 (V) 

MEAN E SCORE FOR GROUPS HAVING VARIOUS MARITIME 
UNION AFFILIATIONS* 


(Maritime School Sample) 



Union 


Form 45 b 

Form 40 b 

Over- all 


N 

Mean E AB 

N 

Mean E A 

N 

Mean 

1 . 

Sailor’s Union of the 
Pacific (AFL) 

26 

4.79 

26 

5. 15 

52 

4.97 

2 . 

Sailor’s International 
Union (AFL) 

20 

4.52 

12 

5.30 

32 

4.81 

3. 

"AFL" only 

7 

4. 10 

9 

4.26 

16 

4. 19 

4. 

Marine Firemen, Oilers, 
Wipers (Independent) 

16 

4. 11 

23 

4.34 

39 

4. 24 

5. 

Master Mates and Pilots 
(Independent) 

0 


1 

6.80 

1 

6.80 

6 . 

Marine Engineers’ Beneficial 
Association (CIO) 2 

3.85 

4 

5.95 

6 

5. 25 

7. 

National Maritime Union 
(CIO) 

29 

3.76 

14 

4.87 

43 

4. 12 

8 . 

"CIO" only 

8 

4.88 

7 

5.00 

15 

4.93 

9. 

"Union" only 

17 

4.07 

12 

5.45 

29 

4.64 

10 . 

Combined AFL (1,2,3) 

(53) 

4.60 

(47) 

5.02 

( 100 ) 

4.79 

11 . 

Combined CIO (6,7,8) 

(39) 

3.99 

(25) 

5.08 

(64) 

4. 41 

12 . 

Combined Independent (4,5) 

(16) 

4.11 

(24) 

4.44 

(40) 

4. 30 

13. 

All Unions Combined ( 1 - 9 ) 

(125) 

4.27 

(108) 

4.95 

(233) 

4.58 

14. 

Combined "None" and Blank 

(53) 

4.55 

(56) 

5.31 

(109) 

4. 94 

15. 

"None " 

17 

4.89 

21 

5.25 

38 

5.08 

16. 

Blank 

36 

4.38 

35 

5.35 

71 

4.85 


Over- all totals 

178 

4.34 

164 

5.08 

342 

4.70 


Standard Deviation 


1.60 


1.76 




a These data are based on answers to the question'. "What groups or 
organizations do you belong to (union, political, fraternal, etc.)?’* 

In administering the questionnaire, it was stressed that the men should 
record their union affiliation. 


b As discussed in Chapter IV, the Maritime School population was divided 
into two roughly equated halves, one of which received Form 45, the 
other Form 40. 


ask the number of questions required to give an adequate index of socio- 
economic class level. Also, the several questions included were often left 
blank, out of defensiveness or lack of knowledge (e.g., of father’s or hus- 
band’s income). Many subjects had no current income, due to momentary 
unemployment or to student or military status. Income had in some cases 
increased during the war period without a corresponding increase in actual 
class level. For these and other reasons, the data below must be interpreted 
only tentatively and with great care. 

Table i7(V) presents mean E scores for groups based on present income. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


® m ol 


8 . 8 


n n n n n 


^ ^ r r 


t- Ol t- 
ri is id 


00 w o 


§ § 8 in 8 

ci ^ v n ri 

N Hf a « 

cq t-i ^ oi 


•o C T3 C 

i 9-3 §| 

3 3 

) bo bD ^ 

' ® a! 0) d 

, Sh ••* U -H .. 

i o c o c w 

i-> r3 

i <i-i o *w o «s 

I O *w O -W 

•rt <-( D 

. . rH . r-j H 

• > « ► # 

I -H U -H U 


O..C A 
3 0 0 
O >> >> 
k K1 01 

U CbO, 


'These groupings are based on answers to the following question: "What is your present incone (to nearest $500 per year) 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 1 99 

It will be noted that some 25 per cent of the total sample reported “no in- 
come,” while 13 per cent left the question blank. The majority of reported 
incomes were below $3,000 per year, only three individuals reporting in- 
comes of over $10,000. Among the incomes below $5,000 there are no 
appreciable differences in E mean (3.30 to 3.57), and no consistent trend of 
increase or decrease. However, the $5,000-$ 10,000 group has a conspicuously 
low E mean of 3.02, while the “above $10,000” group is highest in ethno- 
centrism, with a mean of 4.70. The large but heterogeneous group-mostly 
women— with no income is also relatively high on E (4.10). Among the 
Working-Class Men (Form 40), E mean decreases as income increases up 
to $5,000, after which the E mean goes up again. Among the Middle-Class 
Men (Form 40) and the University of Oregon and University of California 
Student Men (Form 60), on the other hand, the $5,000-$ 10,000 group is by 
far the lowest on E. Thus, there is no simple relation between income and 
ethno centrism, and the relation between income and ideology may well be 
different for the middle class as compared with the working class. It is of 
some interest that in the two groups of nonstudent women (Psychiatric 
Clinic and Middle Class) those with no income were considerably more 
ethnocentric on the average than those with some income. The lower E mean 
in women who work may be due to their economic position; it is more likely, 
however, that the personality trends which lead to nonethnocentrism tend to 
produce also the willingness or desire to have gainful work. 

It seemed that expected income might yield a better measure of economic 
aspirations (and perhaps of class identification) than did present income. The 
mean E scores for groups divided on the basis of expected income (ten years 
from now) are presented in Table 18 (V). The two largest groups are those 
expecting $5,000-$ 10,000 and $3,ooo-$3,9oo, in that order. The over-all totals 
for all samples combined show that E mean gradually increases as expected 
income increases. However, the data for individual samples reveal a more 
complex state of affairs. The E mean for the three highest income groupings 
($4,000 and above) is greater than that for the low income groupings mainly 
because the ethnocentric Maritime School samples (Forms 45 and 40) form 
the bulk (50-70 per cent) of these groupings. It will be noted that within 
each Maritime School sample there is no clear-cut relationship between 
expected income and E mean. Similarly, there are no consistent trends in the 
other samples. Thus, for Form 78 the $4,000-$ 10,000 levels are slightly but 
not significantly more ethnocentric than the lower levels, but the lowest E 
mean is for the “above $10,000” level. For Form 60, on the other hand, the 
variations in E mean are small (2.97 to 3.34) and unrelated to income. Dif- 
ferences among samples are, therefore, much greater than differences among 
actual or expected income levels. 16 These results have little if any bearing 

16 Similar negative results were obtained in preliminary (unpublished) studies of E in 
relation to desired income. 



200 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE 18 (V) 


MEAN A-S OR E SCOKES a FOR GROUPS HAVING VARIOUS LEVELS 
OF EXPECTED YEARLY INCOME 


Group 

Expected Income 
Below $2,000- 
$2,000 2,900 

N Mean N Mean 

Groups taking Form 78: 

U.C. Public Speaking Class Women 

6 

3.08 

26 

2.99 

U.C. Public Speaking Class Men 

0 

— 

5 

3.74 

Extension Psychology Class Women 

0 

— 

4 

3.80 

Professional Women 

14 

2.91 

11 

2.65 

Totals: 

20 

2.97 

46 

3.06 

Groups taking Form 60: 

University of Oregon Student Women 

2 

2.99 

9 

3.27 

Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of California Student Women 

6 

3.90 

9 

3.30 

Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of California Student Men 

2 

1.99 

2 

3.07 

Totals: 

10 

3.34 

20 

3.27 

Groups taking Form 4 5: 

Maritime School Men 

3 

5. 17 

9 

4.16 

Psychiatric Clinic Men 

0 

— 

3 

3.30 

Totals 

3 

5.17 

12 

3.94 

Group taking Form 4 0: 

Maritime School Men 

1 

5.20 

16 

5.22 

Over-all totals: 

34 

3.34 

94 

3.37 


on the theory that economic forces play a basic role in creating a setting for 
the development of ethnocentrism; but they provide evidence against the 
hypothesis that economic level and economic motives per se operate as major 
psychological forces impelling the individual in an ethnocentric or anti- 
ethnocentric direction. 

A further hypothesis to be considered is that prejudice is determined by 
the economic level of the parents. Stated most simply: “A person growing 
up in a rich family is more likely to be prejudiced than one growing up in a 
middle- or low-income family.” In order to make a partial test of this hypoth- 
esis, a question regarding father’s income was included in the questionnaire, 
and the mean A-S or E score was obtained for groups representing several 
income levels. The data are presented in Table 19 (V). The number of cases 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 


201 


Expected Income 


$3, 

3, 

g§9 


$5. 

10 

000- 

,000 

Above 

$10,000 

Blank 

None 


Over-all 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

S.D» 

21 

3.18 

6 

4.32 

11 

3.62 

0 


56 

3.45 

14 

3.11 

140 

3.32 

1.43 

9 

3.00 

10 

3.52 

22 

3.55 

1 

1.20 

5 

2.76 

0 

— 

52 

3.34 

1.48 

4 

2.10 

1 

3.80 

4 

2.35 

0 

— 

29 

3.66 

0 

— 

42 

3.40 

1.36 

14 

2.84 

3 

2.07 

4 

2.10 

3 

3.07 

14 

2.04 

0 

— 

63 

2.57 

1.37 

48 

2.95 

20. 

3.56 

41 

3.31 

4 

2.60 

104 

3.28 

14 

3.11 

297 

3.18 

1.46 

6 

3.54 

1 

2.66 

1 

2.82 

0 



19 

3.50 

9 

3.55 

47 

3.42 

1. 38 

16 

2.91 

4 

4.03 

3 

1.91 

0 

— 

8 

3.71 

8 

2.95 

54 

3.24 

1.29 

12 

2.75 

7 

2.70 

24 

3.12 

4 

3.03 

6 

3.03 

0 

— 

57 

2.93 

1.25 

34 

2.97 

12 

3.14 

28 

2.98 

4 

3.03 

33 

3.47 

17 

3.27 

158 

3.18 

1.31 

27 

4.57 

14 

4.52 

70 

4.46 

12 

4.38 

2 

3.95 

41 

3.98 

178 

4.36 

1.60 

8 

3.59 

3 

4.73 

10 

3.45 

1 

3.40 

0 

— 

25 

3.70 

50 

3.67 

1.59 

35 

4.34 

17 

4.55 

80 

4.34 

13 

4.30 

2 

3.95 

66 

3.87 

228 

4.20 

1.62 

28 

5.23 

20 

5.05 

44 

5.06 

10 

5.60 

0 

— 

45 

4.84 

164 

5.08 

1.76 

145 

3.73 

69 

4.16 

193 

4.09 

31 

4.34 

139 

3.33 

142 

4.03 

847 

3.82 

— 


a The following scales were used in the various forms: 

Form 78: A-S Scale (12 items) 

Form 60: E Scale (10 items) 

Form 45: E Scale (10 items) 

Form 40: E Scale (5 items) 

in the various income levels provides another indication of the largely middle- 
class character of the total sample. The $5,000-$ 10,000 group was the largest, 
with 205 cases. The $2,ooo~$2,9oo and $3,ooo-$3,900 groups, which during 
1944-46 would probably have been the largest in the general population, had 
154 and 186 cases, respectively. A disproportionately large number, 55, were 
in the “$10,000 and above” group. The interpretation of these data is com- 
plicated by the fact that the father’s income now may not be what it was 



202 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 
TABIE 19 (V) 


j g ffl A-S OR E SCORES’* FOR GRO UPS WHOSE FATHERS HAD VARIOUS INCOMES 


Groups taking Form 78: 

U.C. Public Speaking Class Women 
U.C. Public Speaking Class Men 
Extension Psychology Class Women 
Professional Women 


Totals: 


Groups taking Form 60: 

University of Oregon Student Women 

Univ. of Oregon and Only, of California Student Women 

Umv. of Oregon and Univ. of California Student Men 

Totals: 


Groups taking Form 45: 
Maritime School Men 
Psychiatric Clinic Men 
Psychiatric Clinic Women 

Totals: 


Groups taking Form 40: 

George Washington University Student Women 

Maritime School Men 

Middle -Class Women 

Middle-Class Men 

Working-class Men 


Totals: 

Over-all totals: 



Below 

$2,000- 

$2,000 


2,900 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

8 

2.94 

17 

3.35 

2 

5.45 

6 

3.33 

1 

4.20 

2 

4.25 

2 

5.65 

6 

2.30 

13 

3.84 

31 

3.20 

5 

3.45 

7 

3.08 

0 

— 

9 

3. 17 

6 

2.60 

11 

3.28 

11 

2. 99 

27 

3. 19 

12 

3.88 

26 

4.09 

6 

3.62 

4 

2.88 

5 

4.36 

4 

3. 70 

23 

3.92 

34 

3.90 


2 

4.80 

7 

3.20 

6 

5.57 

34 

5.48 

7 

3.46 

9 

3.29 

3 

2.87 

8 

3.35 

5 

4.00 

4 

5.40 

23 

4. 16 

62 

4.62 


70 3.84 154 3.92 


during the: subject’s childhood. It should also be noted that almost half of 
the subjects left this question blank; it is not possible to say how much this 
has influenced the results. 

™ e , E means f* Table , 9 {V) do not vary consistently in relation to 
f ers income. They show negligible and unsystematic variations (from 
3-77 to 3.92) among the various levels below $10,000. However, the group 

S“ic th th arn W°'T\ per year and ab0Ve is “gently less ethno- 
entric than the combined lower income levels (means of 3.33 and 3.84 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 203 


$3, 

3, 


$4,000- 

4,900 

$5,000- 

10,000 

Above 

$10,000 

Blank 


Over-all 


N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

S.D. 

28 

2.99 

9 

3.97 

22 

3.32 

11 

3.83 

45 

3.34 

140 

3.32 

1.43 

10 

3.18 

5 

3.42 

13 

3.39 

5 

3.34 

11 

3.03 

52 

3.34 

1.48 

7 

3. 17 

0 

— 

4 

2.63 

1 

4.70 

27 

3.43 

42 

3.40 

1.36 

3 

2.40 

0 

— 

10 

2.23 

5 

2.34 

37 

2.59 

63 

2.57 

1.37 

48 

3.02 

14 

3.77 

49 

3.06 

22 

3.42 

120 

3. 10 

297 

3.18 

1.46 

8 

3.17 

0 


10 

3.03 

1 

5.31 

16 

3.80 

47 

3.42 

1.38 

9 

3. 14 

4 

3.13 

11 

3.34 

0 

— 

21 

3.28 

54 

3.24 

1.29 

8 

3.17 

5 

2.56 

8 

2.66 

2 

2.49 

17 

3.01 

57 

2.93 

1.25 

25 

3.16 

9 

2. 81 

29 

3.05 

3 

3.43 

54 

3.35 

158 

3.18 

1.31 

31 

4.48 

12 

4.68 

28 

4.68 

8 

3.54 

64 

4.40 

178 

4.36 


6 

3.03 

2 

3.25 

7 

2.97 

0 

— 

25 

4.18 

50 

3.67 

1.59 

5 

1.66 

2 

3.95 

6 

2.75 

1 

1.60 

48 

3.92 

71 

3.65 


42 

3.94 

16 

4.41 

41 

4.11 

9 

3.32 

134 

4.19 

299 

4.07 

1.63 

13 - 

4.11 

10 

3.64 

35 

4.14 

7 

3.97 

58 

4.12 

132 

4.04 

1.58 

30 

5.01 

14 

4.73 

29 

5.13 

5 

4.60 

46 

4.89 

164 

5.08 

1.76 

10 

3.30 

5 

1.84 

9 

2.64 

5 

1.72 

169 

3.96 

154 

3.64 

1.96 

6 

4.63 

5 

4.56 

10 

4.12 

4 

2.40 

33 

4.00 

69 

3.89 

2.08 

12 

4.00 

0 

— 

3 

5.67 

0 

— 

35 

3.41 

59 

3.83 

1.72 

71 

4.40 

34 

3.96 

86 

4.37 

21 

3.29 

281 

4.08 

578 

4. 19 

1.90 

:86 

3.77 

73 

3.88 

205 

3.82 

55 

3.35 

589 

3.84 

1332 

3.82 

- 


a The following scales were used in the various forms: 
Form 78: A-S Scale (10 items) 

Form 60: E Scale (12 items) 

Form 45: E Scale (10 items) 

Form 40: E Scale ( 5 items) 




THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


204 

respectively). Whether this lower mean holds for all individuals whose 
fathers are in this income group, or only for those individuals who get into 
organized groups such as those tested, is not clear. Further study may reveal 
that the lower E mean characterizes those individuals who were born in 
wealthier families but who tend— presumably for emotionally important 
reasons— to gravitate toward middle- or working-class groups, occupations, 
and ideologies. We are led to suspect, on the basis of results in numerous 
areas, that upward class mobility and identification with the status quo cor- 
relate positively with ethnocentrism, and that downward class mobility and 
identification go with anti-ethnocentrism. 

A final “socioeconomic background” factor studied was father’s occupa- 
tion. Table 20 (V) gives the mean E score for various groups based on 
occupation of father. The most common occupations (N — 136-169) were: 
Labor (skilled and unskilled), white collar, and big business-managerial. 
Small business and professional groups were next in size (N — 95 and 90), 
and in order of decreasing size we find farmers, engineers, government offi- 
cials, and religious (ministers, etc.). With regard to E mean, there are only 
three groups which deviate more than 0.3 points from the over-all mean of 
3.86. The offspring of engineers are significantly above average, with a mean 
of 4.36. On the other hand, the offspring of fathers with religious or govern- 
ment occupations are well below average (3-20 and 3-25). For all other occu- 
pations differences are minor and even smaller than the differences from 
sample to sample for any one occupation. No occupational grouping is con- 
sistently high or consistently low in every sample. Even in the case of fathers 
with big business and managerial occupations, the E mean varies considerably; 
it is sometimes below, sometimes above that for the test group from which 
it was taken. Thus, we find particularly low E means for this occupational 
group in the Extension Psychology Class and Professional Women, and a 
relatively high mean for the George Washington University Women (rela- 
tive to the other occupational groupings in each sample). These variations 
suggest, as do the data above, that ethnocentrism in the individual is not 
significantly correlated with many of the socioeconomic groupings which 
are commonly assumed (by many social scientists as well as by laymen) to 
be direct, immediate determinants of ethnocentrism. It is the meaning of the 
group to the individual rather than membership per se, that helps us to 
predict his stand on ethnocentrism and other issues. 

On the basis of the group membership data presented in this section 
(Tables 12 (V)-2o(V) ), certain hypotheses can tentatively be drawn. Per- 
haps the first lesson to be learned concerns the danger of stereotyped think- 
ing about groups. No broad grouping in this study showed anything 
approaching ideological homogeneity. This is not presented as a startling 
discovery but rather as a sober reminder to those who assume a close relation 



MEAN A-S OB E SCORES 8 FOR GROUPS WHOSE FATHERS HAVE VARIOUS OCCUPATIONS 


POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 


2 °5 


(snoatrenao § 
•sxa ‘paJTXSJ § 
‘pBap ‘3pxs) 
pazTJoaaTBOuofj z 


xwtjjo 

■jasmujsAoo 


tBXJsaBuen ® 
pns 

seaaxetiq 2xa z 


XBTOTSsajojd z 


trenssaaxsnq 

taapuadeptn 

XI^BS 


(H 3 B 3 JOJ 

SnTP«Xf<n ) 

»xios nm* 


(psXXTijean pot 

psxXT^s) 



following scales were used In the varli 



20 6 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


between prejudice and membership in certain groups. While certain average 
differences have been found, the Standard Deviations are large and the over- 
lapping between groups considerable. This does not mean that group mem- 
berships and social forces are unimportant in the formation and in the 
expression of ethnocentrism; indeed, there is a wealth of sociological litera- 
ture to show that they are. Rather, it would appear that sociological factors 
play an essential but complex and indirect psychological role. Social psy- 
chology must, therefore, advance beyond its initial stage of seeking— and 
expecting to find— simple relationships between ideology and group member- 
ships; it must go on to study the complex processes by which the individual 
selectivity assimilates the manifold pressures from his socio-ideological envi- 
ronment. 

While no ideologically homogeneous groupings were found, there were 
significant relations between ethnocentrism and certain group memberships. 
The groups which are most differentiated with respect to ethnocentrism— 
that is, which tend to be predominantly high or predominantly low— have 
two main properties: They involve membership by choice rather than mem- 
bership by birth, and they show relatively great homogeneity with respect 
to various other psychological characteristics. Thus, the political preference 
or the income-occupation grouping of the father shows no consistent rela- 
tion to ethnocentrism in the offspring. But the subject’s personal political 
preference (membership by choice), like his socioeconomic aspirations and 
his tendency to accept or reject his father’s political views, is more closely 
related to E score. Similarly, membership in the exclusive Women’s Club 
or the Labor School is more significant in terms of E than membership in 
the United Electrical Workers Union or the Parent-Teachers’ Association, 
the latter groups being less homogeneous in all ideological areas. 

The group memberships having the greatest significance for ethnocentrism 
are, then, those which have the greatest psychological significance for the 
individual. They are, it seems, groups which the individual chooses to join 
because they permit the further development and fuller expression of dis- 
positions existing prior to joining. We are forced to reexamine the notion 
that the group membership determines the ideology— that, for example, a 
man is prejudiced because he is a Republican or a member of a snobbish 
club. Not only is the ideology likely to have preceded (in at least a primitive 
form) the joining of the group but, more important, both the ideology and 
the group membership seem to express deeper trends in the individual. An 
example of such a trend is “independence” versus “submission” in relation to 
parental authority. Thus, high scorers on E demonstrated greater submission 
and conformity than did the low scorers, both in the content of their ideology 
(E and PEC) and in their choice of political party (Table i4(V)). The 
individual’s choice of group, like his choice of ideology, appears to be not 
merely a matter of chance or of simple imitation, but in large part an expres- 



POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 207 

sion of important emotional dispositions. Before turning to these issues in 
more detail we shall, in the next chapter, consider religious ideology and 
groupings in relation to ethnocentrism. 


F. CONCLUSIONS 

The study of politico-economic ideology and group memberships has led 
to a broadening in our conception of the antidemocratic individual. The 
Anti-Semitism and Ethnocentrism scales* our primary measures of antidemo- 
cratic trends, show statistically significant relationships with the right-left 
dimension of politico-economic ideology. There appears to be an affinity 
between conservatism and ethnocentrism, liberalism and anti-ethnocentrism. 
The relationship is, however, quantitatively imperfect (r = approximately 
.5) and qualitatively complex. It is proposed, in further studies, to break 
down the right-left dimension into numerous ideological patterns. One of 
these— perhaps the most significant in terms of potential antidemocracy— is 
the pseudoconservative. 

In previous chapters we have seen that anti-Semitism or anti-Negroism, 
for example, are not isolated attitudes but parts of a relatively unified ethno- 
centric ideology. The present chapter suggests that ethnocentrism itself is 
but one aspect of a broader pattern of social thinking and group functioning. 
Trends similar to those underlying ethnocentric ideology are found in the 
same individual’s politico-economic ideology. In short, ideology regarding 
each social area must be regarded as a facet of the total person and an expres- 
sion of more central (“subideological”) psychological dispositions. 



CHAPTER VI 


ETHNOCENTRISM IN RELATION TO SOME 
RELIGIOUS ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES 

R. Nevitt Sanford 


A. INTRODUCTION 

In approaching the topic of religion, the general question was similar to 
that raised in connection with politico-economic ideology: What trends in 
religious thought and practice can be distinguished and what, if any, is their 
significance for prejudice or its opposite? Categories for the analysis of reli- 
gious thought were not, however, ready to hand. It seemed that a qualitative 
study of interview material had to precede any attempt to quantify trends 
in religious ideology. Such a study was made, and it is reported in Chapter 
XVIII, 1 but since the collection of interviews and of questionnaires pro- 
ceeded simultaneously, it was not possible to make use of a completed quali- 
tative analysis in preparing measuring instruments for use with groups of 
subjects. Only a few hypotheses, suggested during the early stages of the 
study, were represented in the content of the questionnaire. The present 
chapter is concerned solely with results obtained through the use of the 
questionnaire. These results were derived from data on the religious affilia- 
tions of the subjects and their parents as set forth on the first page of the 
questionnaire, from answers to an open-ended question about religion and the 
church which was used in a preliminary form of the questionnaire, and from 
responses to three scale items which belong in the general area of religion. 

B. RESULTS 

1. RELIGIOUS GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 

a. Acceptance or Rejection of Religion. Data on religious affiliation 
were obtained by means of the question, “What is your religion?” which 

1 Interview material bearing on certain religious attitudes also appears in Chapters XI 
and XXI. 


208 



ETHNOCENTRISM AND RELIGIOUS ATTITUDES 209 

appeared on page one of the questionnaire in all four of its forms. In answering 
this question, subjects gave the name of some religious sect or wrote “none” 
or left the question blank. The answer “none” is taken as an indication that 
the subject rejects religion, while answering with the name of some religious 
group is taken as evidence that he somehow accepts religion. When the 
question is left blank, no inferences can be made. The data obtained by means 
of this question from the four forms of the questionnaire are summarized 
in Table i(VI). 

Attention may first be called to the fact that subjects who answer “none” 
(last column but one in Table i(VI)) obtain an over-all mean A-S or E 
score, 2.71 (last row in Table i(VI)), that is notably lower than the means 
for most of the religious groups. 2 The only exceptions appear in the case of 
the Unitarians, whose over-all mean is 1.99, and the Combined Minor Prot- 
estant Sects, whose over-all mean is 2.49. For all the other religious denom- 
inations the means are in the range 3.41 (Congregational) to 4.38 (Lutheran). 
These trends appear in the data for each form of the questionnaire as well as 
in the over-all totals. If all subjects who professed to some religious affiliation 
were placed in one group for statistical purposes, their mean score would be 
very much higher than that of those who claim no religious affiliation. There 
seems to be no doubt that subjects who reject organized religion are less 
prejudiced on the average than those who, in one way or another, accept it. 

Subjects with religious affiliations are not, however, generally ethnocen- 
tric. Although the nonreligious subjects are clearly nonethnocentric on the 
average, the mean scores for the various religious denominations are, on the 
whole, very close to the neutral point. 

The overwhelming majority of our subjects do profess to some religious 
affiliation. The nonreligious, nonethnocentric group is relatively small in 
number and, probably, not very important socially. The variability among 
the religious subjects seems to be almost as great as it is for our over-all 
sample. This means that among our religious subjects both extreme high and 
extreme low scorers are to be found. We must also take note of the fact that 
among the nonreligious subjects, high as well as low scorers appear. In this 
latter connection a possible sex difference is to be noted. Nonreligious women 
seem to obtain lower scores on the average than do nonreligious men. (Note, 
in the “none” column of Table i(VI), the means for the groups of women 
and for the groups of men.) The nonreligious women almost always score 
definitely low while the nonreligious men are much more variable, 
b. Ethnocentrism in Different Religious Denominations. If we ask 
why some religious people score high and others low on ethnocentrism, we 

2 The estimation of the significance of differences between means in this chapter follows 
the same rule that was used in Chapter V. Cf. the footnote 12 to Chap. V. If the N’s for the 
groups in question are as large as 50, then a difference of .6 is likely to be significant, at 
least at the 5 per cent level. Most of the differences discussed in this chapter are much 
larger than .6 and seem well above the minimum requirements of statistical significance. 



2 10 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE 1 (VI) 

MEAN A-S OR E SCORES OP VARIOUS RELIGIOUS GROUPS 



I. 

Catholic 

n. . 

Protestant* 

III. 

Combined 

Major 

Protestant 

Sects 

Presby- 

terian 

Methodist 

Lutheran 


N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

Croups taking Form 78: 

Public Speaking Class Women 

23 

3. 15 

24 

3.35 

(80) 

(3. 52) 

18 

3.69 

19 

3. 70 

6 

4.03 

Public Speaking Class Men 

9 

3.66 

14 

3. 73 

(18) 

(3.04) 

5 

2. 98 

4 

2.60 

1 

3.70 

Extension Class Women 

8 

4.38 

13 

3.99 

(9) 

(2. 80) 

2 

1.80 

1 

2.50 

0 

-- 

Professional Women 

10 

2.44 

17 

2.64 

(22) 

(3.09) 

1 

5. 10 

1 

4.80 

0 

" 

Total: Form 78 

50 

3.29 

68 

3. 37 

(129) 

(3.33) 

26 

3. 46 

25 

3. 52 

7 

3.99 

Croups taking Form 60: 

Univ. of Oregon Student Women 

3 

3. 36 

4 

L 85 

(26) 

(4. 12) 

8 

3. 63 

4 

4.08 

1 

5.25 

Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of 
California Student Women 

5 

3.40 

18 

3. 15 

(20) 

(3. 60) 

3 

3.83 

3 

3.25 

2 

2.58 

Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of 
California Student Men 

4 

3.98 

13 

3. 15 

(19) 

(3. 11) 

2 

3.92 

3 

2.86 

2 

4.50 

Total: Form 60 

12 

3.58 

35 

3.05 

(65) 

(3. 66) 

13 

3. 72 

10 

3,47 

5 

3. 88 

Croups taking Form 45: 

Maritime School Men 

25 

4.36 

77 

4.59 

(46) 

(4. 51) 

3 

5.23 

12 

4.65 

9 

4.42 

Psychiatric Clinic Men 

11 

3. 46 

13 

3.94 

(6) 

(4.32) 

2 

3. 30 

1 

5. 50 

0 


Psychiatric Clinic Women 

18 

4.55 

15 

4.58 

(18) 

(3.53) 

5 

3. 58 

6 

2. 90 

3 

3. 80 

San Quentin Men 

24 

4.67 

38 

4.49 

(29) 

(4.65) 

4 

4.35 

7 

4.83 

4 

4.98 

Total: Form 45 c 

54 

4.24 

110 

4.48 

(70) 

(4.24) 

10 

4.02 

19 

4. 14 

12 

4.27 

Croups taking Form 40: 

Geo. Washington Univ. Women 

16 

4.51 

15 

3.99 

(81) 

(4. 16) 

15 

4.53 

12 

4. 52 

4 

4. 15 

Maritime School Men 

35 

5. 15 

59 

5. 24 

(42) 

(5.07) 

7 

4. 09 

9 

5.07 

4 

5.80 

Middle-Class Women 

6 

4. 57 

60 

3. 98 

(61) 

(3. 59) 

9 

4.20 

3 

5.60 

A 

6.40 

Middle-Class Men 

3 

6.20 

29 

4. 23 

(20) 

(4. 15) 

3 

4.00 

5 

4.48 

1 

5.00 

Working-Class Men 

14 

4.67 

16 

3. 75 

(13) 

(4. 15) 

0 

-- 

5 

4. 12 

5 

4.20 

Total: Form 40 

74 

4.92 

179 

4. 42 

(217) 

(4. 18) 

34 

4.31 

34 

4.69 

15 

4.81 

Over-all total: four forms 

190 

4. 21 

392 

4. 13 

(481) 

(3. 89) 

83 

3.92 

88 

4. 10 

39 

4.38 


a Protestant here refers to subjects who answered "Protestant" but did not give the name of any 
denomination. 


b The following denominations of sects were combined: Bible, Brethren, Christian, Disciple, 
Evangelical, Humanist, Moral Rearmament, Natural Law, Nazarene, Quaker, Adventist, Unity, 
Universalist. The designations of these sects are those employed by the subjects in filling 
out their questionnaires. The division into major and minor Protestant sects does not conform 
in every particular with the actual membership figures for the whole United States; it was 

naturally turn our attention first to the question of what role the particular 
religious denomination or sect has to play. Examination of Table i(VI) 
shows that there are no differences of any significance between Catholics 
and Protestants, and this regardless of whether we place in one category 
those subjects who answered “Protestant” or whether we combine the larg- 
est Protestant denominations. Among the Protestant denominations which 
have been classed as “major,” only one group distinguishes itself: the Uni- 
tarians 3 have a lower mean score than any of the others. This seems to be in 
keeping with the generally liberal outlook of this group. The minor Prot- 
estant denominations taken together obtain a lower mean score than do any 
of the other religious groups save the Unitarians. Unfortunately, none of 

3 In terms of membership figures for the United States this body probably should not be 
classed as “major.” 




ETHNOCENTRISM AND RELIGIOUS ATTITUDES 


21 I 


Congre- 

gational 

Episco- 

palian 

Baptist 

Christian 

Science 

Mormon 

Unitarian 

IV. 

Combined 

Minor 

Protestant 

Sects® 

V. 

None 

VI. 

Blank 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

N 

Mean 

2 

2.25 

21 

3.30 

5 

3. 18 

5 

3.46 

3 

4.30 

1 

1. 10 

(0) 

( -- ) 

10 

2.49 

0 


0 


4 

2.60 

1 

5.60 

2 

4.00 

0 

— 

1 

1.80 

(3) 

(2,27) 

7 

3. 16 

1 

5. 10 

0 

— 

1 

4.70 

2 

4.50 

1 

1. 60 

1 

2.60 

1 

1.20 

(0) 

< - ) 

6 

1.95 

5 

3. 22 

1 

2.90 

11 

3. 46 

3 

1.87 

0 

-- 

1 

2.70 

4 

2. 18 

(0) 

( - ) 

9 

1. 28 

2 

1.95 

3 

2. 47 

37 

3.31 

11 

3. 28 

8 

3.36 

5. 

3.64 

7 

1.83 

(3) 

(2. 27) 

32 

2. 19 

~ 

3. 14 

0 


8 

3.90 

2 

5. 42 

2 

5. 13 

1 

4. 17 

0 

- 

(0) 

( - ) 

3 

1. 17 

1 

1.67 

1 

1.75 

7 

4. 05 

1 

3. 25 

3 

4. 11 

0 

- 

0 

- 

(0) 

( -* > 

5 

2.30 

0 

- 

1 

2. 08 

2 

2.71 

3 

2.97 

2 

4.00 

4 

2.31 

0 

— 

(0) 

( " ) 

K) 

2.27 

1 

1. 58 

2 

1.92 

17 

3.82 

6 

3.83 

7 

4.37 

5 

2.68 

0 

-- 

(0) 

( - ) 

18 

2.09 

2 

1.63 

0 


4 

3.83 

10 

4. 62 

4 

4. 13 

4 

4.50 

0 

... 

(0) 

( ” ) 

23 

3.65 

5 

2.62 

0 


0 

-- 

1 

5. 70 

1 

4.50 

1 

3.60 

0 

-- 

(2) 

(1.50) 

8 

3.38 

3 

3.67 

1 

3.00 

2 

3.60 

1 

6.60 

0 

— 

0 

— 

0 

-- 

(0) 

( — ) 

15 

1.91 

2 

3.45 

0 


4 

5.00 

2 

5.90 

5 

4.02 

3 

3. 90 

0 

— 

(0) 

( - ) 

12 

4.22 

5 

5. 82 

1 

3.00 

6 

3.75 

12 

4. 88 

5 

4. 20 

5 

4.32 

0 

— 

(2) 

(1.50) 

46 

3. 04 

"kT 

3. 10 

3 

3.67 

30 

4.00 

10 

4.24 

4 

4.40 

1 

4.60 

2 

1. 10 

(4) 

(2.85) 

10 

2.94 

2 

2. 40 

1 

1.40 

4 

6.50 

7 

5.45 

6 

4.80 

4 

5.30 

0 


(0) 

( — ) 

18 

4. 76 

3 

4. 53 

8 

4.48 

17 

2. 58 

4 

5.70 

5 

3. 96 

1 

6.20 

13 

2. 25 

(2) 

(2.60) 

14 

1.37 

4 

3.50 

1 

2.40 

5 

2.92 

•1 

6.60 

1 

6.60 

2 

5.90 

1 

1.60 

(0) 

( - ) 

14 

2. 49 

1 

1. 20 

0 

■- 

1 

4.60 

1 

4.20 

1 

3.60 

0 

~ 

" 

0 

-* 

(1) 

(3.40) 

11 

2. 24 

3 

4. 00 

13 

3.89 

57 

3.67 

23 

4.99 

17 

4.49 


5.52 

16 

2.06 

(7) 

(2.86) 

67 

2.89 

~ 

3.51 

19 

3. 41 

117 

3. 58 

111 

3.94 

37 

4. 18 

23 

4.23 

23 

L 99 

(23) 

(2.49) 

163 

2.71 

33 

3. 18 


influenced somewhat by the representation of these sects within our over-all sample. 


c The San Quentin Group was not included in obtaining any of the over- all values: their means 
were so much higher than those of any other group, for reasons which seemed to have little 
to do with religion (see Chapter XXI), that the inclusion of this large group would throw 
the general picture out of focus. 

these minor groups was represented by enough subjects to warrant separate 
statistical treatment, and we have undoubtedly combined groups which have 
little in common. There is, however, the suggestion that belonging to a minor 
denomination expresses some measure of dissent or nonconformity, or at 
least some lack of identification with the status quo , and that this is something 
which works against ethnocentrism. An interesting project would be to 
obtain representative samples of these groups and to study the specific con- 
tents of their beliefs in relation to patterns of response on the present scales, 
c. Church Attendance. Another type of difference among people with 
religious affiliations, a difference that might be significant for prejudice, is 
in the matter of frequency of church attendance. It might be supposed that 
those who attend regularly participate more fully in those aspects of formal- 
ized religion which seem to favor ethnocentrism, and hence will obtain 
higher A-S or E scores than those who attend less frequently. The data 



MEAN A-S OR E SPORES FOR GROUPS SHOWING VARIOUS FREQUENCIES OF CHURCH ATTENDANCE 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


oo co to c-ico 

Tp TP 00 OO ItP 


CO CO CO CO CM p 

m t- m o t" 05 


TP CO tP CO CO 05 

O O to CO CO ’-H 


tp m oo oo oo [tp 


O N N CO t* 

tn cote 


i 03 CS Tp tP 03 03 CO 

03 oo to in to in o* 

cs fin 


^ H N HOO 
CO H rt H to 


CO CS to 1H M 


C-OO t» 
t'incot' 


O Q 

o 

o 

00 cs 

cs 

03 

o 

cs CO 

1 TP T-l 

CO 

oo 03 

Tp 

CS 

cs 

00 cs 

o co 

<0 

1 — 1 

1 — 1 

cs o 

00 T-I 

in co ~ 

" t- 

00 

CO CO 

Tp T — 1 

o 

cs 

TP CO 

00 00 

00 * 

00 

Tp 00 


N^OOJtDO 

TP tP Tp 00 00 tP 

CN) TP E~ CNJ CS f 
1 — ( 

CS CO CO © o eo 
oo co in co tp c-* 

CN O 1-1 CN oj oi 
in CO C- 03 03 CO 


H ^ t- 03 H 

CO Tf CO Tf CO 
*-i CS 


co co in 
2J co in oo 


^ in co ^ tpItp 


CO 00 00 CS 00 


oo in oo tp ooItp 


CO 03 in 03 

oo co to o 


co N H t- CS CS 
TP Tp CO 00 O'* CO 


00 00 00 00 00 

OlOO rt[- 


TP 00 CO tP 
03 03 00 *-H 


tp in oo in tp tp 

cs in co cs oo q 

TP TP co H H in 


03 oo c- o p 
O TP Tp o- cs 


00 00 Tp CS 00 00 00 1 cs I 00 I Tp CS TP TP Tp tP Tp 03 TP TP 


c- m I oo I Npt-esoo o- o- in en co co 

1 »H T-l TP l-H ’-< 00 Tp T-H 00 |l-H 


: a M 

> a> aJ 
: 5E <-> 

o 

3 TO 
) TO >> 

J cti fcuo 
H —I O C 
) o f-t a> 

O E 
D O 

: C O 3: 
i *<h !>» 

lUfi’S 

>a) a .. 

j, a c o co 

ICO O-HH 

i-t to eS 

> d cq oi-p 
i -rH a a> o 
i a> t|_i H 
IJ3+> O 

:£££ 


§ <w 1 

!°C 
S . a> 
> E 

■HP O 1 

c a » 
.. a> 

OX) -P 
<0 3TJ C' 
-p c at 
e cQ on 

fc. 3 

O C C -P 
It, O OCQ 
MW) 

bo at at aJ 

c P P "H 

O O Ci 

—Oct (-1 

3 <W <W O < 
T- O O tp 


I Q. > > 0 $ 

3 *H *H O ' 

o c a 
p is » : 


O H 

^ o o a 

fcto »C 

c o o o 

•K. w -iH tH . . 

— ce P p CO 

e a> -p -m 

6 ci nJ ci 

•p -rH -r-t +J 

«fP£B O 
Q.*p CJ o H 

3 P >> >> 

o 03 TO CO 

L £ Ph Qh 


3 S at c 
E c at 
5 H O at 55 

3 o =e 5 

3 o co 

lO J3 CO CO to 

: g ffl co ® 

h OQ eS eC h . . 

S .—I .—I U wt 
p a> o O i .-i 

S E l i (3JD cu 

s .p a> a> c +j 

PHH'H o 
.‘H T) T! PC ft 
) U XJ XJ P 

1) oj -H -H O 


ETHNOCENTRISM AND RELIGIOUS ATTITUDES 213 

obtained by means of the question, “How often do you attend services?” 
which appeared in all forms of the questionnaire are given in Table 2 (VI). 
Our supposition with respect to those who attend regularly is not borne out. 
The mean score for subjects in this category is not significantly different 
from the means of those who attend often or of those who attend seldom. 
If, however, we combine these three categories, “regularly,” “often,” “sel- 
dom,” and compare the mean score of subjects in this broader category with 
that of subjects who say they never attend, then it appears that the latter 
score very notably lower. Once again, it appears that those who reject re- 
ligion have less ethnocentrism than those who seem to accept it. What it is 
among the latter that makes for high or for low scores has still to be 
discovered. 

d. Religious Affiliations of Parents. It may be inquired whether re- 
ligious subjects do not differ, in a way that is significant for prejudice, with 
respect to the manner in which religious pressures have been applied and the 
manner in which they have been accepted. It has been pointed out earlier 
that a group membership which the subject chooses for himself may have a 
different significance than a group membership which he has by virtue of 
having grown up within it. It may be suggested also that the homogeneity 
of the religious pattern to which the subject was subjected during his forma- 
tive years and the consistency with which religious pressures have been 
applied have a bearing upon prejudice. Some light may be shed upon these 
matters by examining the data obtained by asking the subjects to state on 
their questionnaires what was or is the religion of their father and of their 
mother. This made it possible to consider various relations between father’s 
religion and that of the mother as possible correlates of ethnocentrism score. 

The results of this proceeding are shown in Table 3 (VI). Here it is worth 
noting that, with each form of the questionnaire, A-S or E score is slightly 
higher on the average in those subjects whose father and mother had the 
same religion than in those whose parents had different religions. 4 The dif- 
ference which appears in the over-all totals probably approaches statistical 
significance. In groups taking Forms 78 and 60 the mean score is slightly 
lower for subjects neither of whose parents was religious than for subjects 
in either of the first two categories; in the case of the three groups taking 
Forms 40 and 45 whose responses were analyzed, the number of subjects in 
the category “neither religious” is so small as to be negligible. These results 
suggest that ethnocentrism may be higher in subjects whose parents presented 

4 Calculations of this relationship were performed on only one group taking Form 45 
and two groups taking Form 40. The relationships with which we were concerned had 
appeared so consistently in all groups examined up to the time Form 60 was revised, that 
it seemed we might economize merely by sampling the remaining groups. This, as it 
turned out, was not very fortunate, in as much as some of the relationships found with 
Forms 78 and 60 are not confirmed in the groups selected for analysis from among those 
taking Forms 40 and 45. 



MEAN A-S OR E SCORES FOR GROUPS SHOWING VARIOUS RELATIONS BETWEEN FATHER’ S RELIGION AND MOTHER'S RELIGION 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


co eo co t— |co 

T*< CO CO It* 


co eo co cm co 


CO CO CM I CO 


^ oo n? 

O O 


ONNCOt- 

t* m ^ co os 

CM 


CM t* CO 

2 2 8 


o O t- CO I CM 
o co ^ t- k* 


CO CM CO CM I CO 


CM i •“* I CM 


CO 03 ~ 
03 03 in 


CO CM oo o ^ 


in CM CM CM 


CO CM CM I CM 


CM CM CM CO 


s ss 

Gp &. S 2 


CM O O ol CM 


CM ’-i O I CO 


CM CO ’D* CM CM 


CO CO CM CO 


O I s| &.I 


^ in CM 03 o 


oo co in I co 


I-H c c c 

03 03 O Cl) 

OS Ih -M 03 J 

03 bC SU 


CO CO CO CM CO 


CO CM CM CO 


^ ON 
CO CO *1 


eoc-o in © 


cm o co co co 

t- CM 
CO CO CO CM CO 


in co in w m 

C- CO CM CO t- 


lisg* 

> 03 **• e .. 

l a a o w 

IWO-rtH 

•h is ea 
) o m m -p 
l-H c ® o 

IH 

ifip o 

I 3 X P 

, a. w a, 


Q 

03 «W < 

g ° _ 

O C 
S: . 03 
> E 

4J-H O' 

c c » 

.. 03 to ; 

CO 4P 
IO 30 C 
■PC® 

e w c3 to 

U. 3 

O c C 4J 
It, o o to 
be bo 

be 03 03 Cl) 
c (h E* -fH 

■-oogi 

C tW <M O 1 

o O «M 


El. > > Cl) 
3 -W O • 

0 5 C 

p. Z3 : 


© > 
O-H C 

O C r-l 

C*, o o 

4P O 
be be .c 
c c o 


■W a) E Cd 
I at •-( 4 P 
«0 4 P O 
Q. * -*-t r-> 
3 O )-• 
o 03 CD 
= 



ETHNOCENTRISM AND RELIGIOUS ATTITUDES 2 I 5 

a united religious front than in subjects in whose case the religious influence 
from the parents was inconsistent, partial, or nonexistent. It may be that in 
the ethnocentric subjects whose mother and father were both religious, we 
are dealing with submission to ingroup authority and that the effects are the 
more pronounced the more consistent that authority has been. 

But regardless of what might have been the relation between the father’s 
religion and that of the mother, the subject may or may not have accepted 
the religious pressures of his family. Going on the assumption that in America 
religion is most largely a “maternal” matter, we have brought together in 
Table 4 (VI) the mean A-S or E scores of groups showing various relations 
between the subject’s religion and the mother’s religion. Here it appears that, 
in general, subjects professing the same religion as the mother have a higher 
score on A-S or E than do subjects professing a religion different from that 
of the mother. Where the mother is religious but the subject not, or the sub- 
ject is religious while the mother is not, the prejudice score is still lower and 
as we should expect, the lowest means appear when neither the subject nor 
the mother is religious. Concerning these results as a whole, one might say 
that whereas religious affiliation goes with higher scores on the scales, this is 
less likely to be the case if the religion is “one’s own,” that is to say, if it has 
been accepted independently of or in revolt against the main carrier of re- 
ligious influence in the family. Where this has been the case, the chances 
are that the religion has been fairly well internalized. More than this, we have 
reason to believe that submission to and dependence upon parental authority 
is an important determinant of ethnocentrism; subjects, particularly women, 
who profess a religion that is different from that of the mother have probably 
been able to free themselves from these attitudes and hence, to a considerable 

degree, from prejudice. . 

The results just presented are much more pronounced in women than in 
men. The explanation here might be that for men the mother is not usually 
a center of conflict with respect to authority and that men who side with 
the mother in the matter of religion may gain thereby something of that 
Christian humanism which works against prejudice. 

These results on family relationships in relation to religion and ethnocen- 
trism suggest that in order to understand why some religious people are 
prejudiced and others are not, it is necessary to explore the deeper psycho- 
logical aspects of the problem rather than limit ourselves to gross sociological 

factors. 

2. “IMPORTANCE” OF RELIGION AND THE CHURCH 

One approach to the psychological aspects of religion was to ask subjects 
directly, “How important in your opinion are religion and the Church?” 
This question appeared on the questionnaire form used just prior to Form 78. 
Answers were obtained from 123 women students in an Introductory Psy- 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALIT 


© U 3 C 
3 O O <S 

+J J 3 -r-» QJ 


-§ W =|z 

co in 
3 

n o c 
© Tn d 

* hh S 
+* © o 

® 02 z 

CQ 

S CO 2 


eo 

CO 

co 

C- 

CO 


CO 

a 


ss 


CM 


8 

05 

o 


r* 

eo 

eo 

r* 


eo 


CM 


CO 


m 

CD 

th 

TH 

iH 

TH 

lH 


TH 

tH 


tH 


TH 


TH 

TH* 

lH 

CM 

■<*< 

o 

C- 

CO 


CO 

m 


m 


05 


CD 

e- 

m 

CO 

CO 

•<*! 

m 

lH 


r* 

CM 


05 


TH 


eo 

co 

co 

CO 

eo* 

eo 

CM 

CO 


CO 

eo 


CM 


eo 



eo 

eo 

o 

CM 

CM 

CO 

c— 


C- 

r* 


C- 


co 


co 

8 


n< 

m 

r*< 

CD 

8 


r* 

m 


m 


m 


c- 

C- 

TH 










*' H 


rH 



m 


O 


C- 


CO 

o 


co 


CO 


CM 

CO 

o 


i 

c- 

1 

co 


CO 

m 


C- 


05 


t- CO 

eo 

eo 

i 



CO 


eo 

CM 


CM 


CM 


CO 

CO 

eo 

CM 

o 

TH © 

eo 


eo 

tH 


CO 


C- 


O CD 

t- 














TH 




88 

in 

eo 


c- 

eo 


m 


m 


o 


00 

i 

o 

CM 


TH 

eo 


t- 


co 


m 

1 

tH 

i 

rH 

TH 

TH 

TH 


tH 

CM 


CM 






tH 

o 

H 

TH 

CM 

If 


CM 

tH 


rH 


I*! 


TH 

o 

T* 

eo 

& 

O 


CO 


m 



C- 


05 





CM 

o 

1 

eo 


CO 

CM 


CD 


C- 


1 

1 

1 

CM 

th 

rt< 

I 

CM 


CM 

CO 


lH 


CM 


1 

1 

1 

CO 

i-t 

i—i 

O 

CO 


r* 

CM 


TH 


t- 


o 

o 

o 

c- 

TH 

CM 

CO 



C— 

a 


O 


CO 


tH 

C- 

CM 


t” 

CD 

T* 

in 


tH 


CD 


co 


CD 

TH 

CM 

CM 

CO 

CM 

TH 

CM 


H 

CM 


TH 


TH 


CO 

CO 

CM 

05 

tr- 

O 

05 

in 


TH 

r* 


m 


o 


CM 

CD 

05 




eo 









CM 



CM 

ee 

CO 

m 

CM 


o 

CO 


TH 


o 


CO 

rf 

m 

eo 

rh 

CM 

05 

CM 


o 



TH 





05 

tr- 

eo 

eo 

CO 

CM 

eo 


eo 

eo 


eo 


CO 


T* 

CM 

ee 

TH 

m 

o 

TH 

C- 


CD 

co 


CM 


CD 


CD 


TH 

r* 


TH 

CM 

C- 



rH 


CM 


m 


TH 

TH 

TH 

O 

c- 

o 

■<*! 

C- 


CM 

in 


m 


C- 


CD 

CD 

m 

m 

eo 

05 

t- 

co 


CM 

■>* 


TH 


m 


m 

tH 

CM 

00 

eo 

eo 

CM 

CO* 


T* 

eo 


CO 


eo 


r* 



CM 

co 

05 

TH 

o 



co 


m 




05 

rt< o 

CO 

eo 

TH 

CO 

C- 


CM 

CM 


CM 


tr- 


CM 

CM 






TH 









lH 





a 
















© 
















e 
















o 




C 












*s 




© 



<w 







c 






s 

o 


o 







© 


w 




o 


c 








s 

c 

cn 




3 s 


© 








o 

© 

cd 





> 

s 

> 

c 





C 

Be 

E rH 




-M 

•H 

a 

•pH 

© 





© 



O 




C 

c 

c 

s 




C 

S 

to 

cn 




• . 

© 

3 ) 


35 





© 

o 

in 

cn 

>s 



© T 3 


4 -> 


4 -> 





ed 

cd 

bo 



CO 

3 

T 3 

c 

T 3 

c 


S3 

c 



* — f 

i— i 

O 

c 



-M 

C 

© 

C 

© 



© 

o 

o 

O 

o .h 

© 


E 

02 

3 

T 3 

cd 

T3 


C 

S 

•pH 

•pH 



o 

E 


u. 



3 


3 


u. 


c 

c 

bo 

bo J 3 

a 


o 

C 

C -*£ 

c 

-M 


o 

pH 

•pH 

•H 

C 

c 

o 

be 


Cs, 

o 

O 02 

o 

02 


C*u 

o 

pH 

rH 

•H 

•»H 

>5 




bo 

bo 


bo 




o 

o 

o 

’■a-a 

cn 

DU 

pH 

cd 


b£> © 
c 

© 

u 

cd 

•pH 

© 

u 

cd 

•pH 


W) JZ 

c o 

o 

o 

© 

© 

c 

. • 

•PA 

O 

o 

c 

O 

c 

• . 

•H 

02 

•pH 

•pH 

& 

a 

c 

o 

cn 




Ch 


Ih 

cn 



U 

M 

02 

o 

•p— f 

pH 

O 



O 


O 

pH 

e 

© 

4 J 

4 -> 


•pH 

cn 

cd 


o 

O <H 

O <W 

cd 

■H 

s 

cd 

cd 

o 

O 

cn 

cn 

-a 




•r^ 


•iH 

4-5 


•pH 

•pH 

•H 

•r^ 

iH 

c 

© 

O 

co 

* 


r—\ 



o 

Vi 

-M 


XI 

,rH 

P 1 

© 


Eh 

Q. > 

> 

St 

> 

d 

Eh 

O. 

•pH 

O 

o 

■9 

a 

4 -> 

o 


3 

•rl 

•pH 

o 

•pH 

O 


3 

Ch 

T»J 

>5 

3 

X 



o 

c 

c 


c 



O 

cd 

cn 

cn 

DU 

DU 

63 Cu 


u 

3 ) 

9 


3 > 



K 

S DU 

DU 


















CO CD CO CO CMI© 

in h ® o t" loi 


HHHN h h 


^ CO ^ 05 CO 05 
O O CD CO CO tH 


m eo eo coin* 


cm in cm cm eo co 


o o o o o eo 

rtf CM CM © O CO 


CO in i-* tH iH CM 
H N H HH lO 


o o © 

r i r * 1 i O r* 

II .1 . . 

r -> in r* 


o o »-! o ml cd 


CO CO N o N o 
o eo CM CO CO eo 


CO r*< *— i csj CM I CM 


co in co co co co 


r* m 1 *< r* T*<J T*< 


o > 

S 3 - — ' C 
C © 

e o as 


—i 02 
n* J 3 
e to d 
•w a s 
& -i-i 
«0 +> 
cv • *i-i 
3 0 ^ 

o © a 
6 OS5 


© c 
sc© 

in in in. 
in in a 
Cd CS rH . . 
pH .H O W 
O O i h 
i i fcuD cd 
© © C -M 
>— t i— i *i-i O 

2 s -a h 

■o T 1 h 

•H *pH O 

s s as 


Over- all Totals: 807 




ETHNOCENTRISM AND RELIGIOUS ATTITUDES 217 

chology Class at the University of California. 5 The responses of the subjects 
were categorized according to the following scheme: 

1. Generally and without qualification against both religion and the Church. 

2. “Not important,” with no qualifications given. 

3. Agnostic; emphasis on values, ethics, way of living fostered by religion and 
the Church. 

4. Emphasis on religion as a source of inner strength and satisfaction. 

5. Acceptance of religion but rejection of the Church; emphasis on such con- 
cepts as faith and God. 

6. “Mildly important,” with no qualifications given. 

7. Religion and the Church both important; acceptance of prayer, church 
attendance, religious rituals. 

Mean A-S score for subjects giving each of these categories of response 
was calculated. Means for categories 6 and 7 were relatively high, means for 
all the other categories relatively low. These results were not, however, satis- 

TABLE 5 (VI) 

MEAN A-S SCORES OF GROUPS GIVING DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF 
RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION: "HOW IMPORTANT ARE RELIGION 
AND THE CHURCH?" 


Categories of Response 

N. 

Mean 

A-S Score 

S.D. 

"High" categories 



54.5 

6 and 7 combined 

65 

180.7 

"Low" categories 



41.8 

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 combined 

58 

115. 4 


factory from a statistical point of view, mainly because several of the cate- 
gories were represented by very few subjects. It seemed justifiable to com- 
bine categories 6 and 7, on the basis that both described a favorable attitude 
toward religion and the church while making no distinction between the 
two; similarly, all the remaining categories could be combined on the basis 
that they represented something other than uncritical acceptance of formal- 
ized religion. The means for these two higher-order categories appear in 
Table 5 (VI). Subjects who believe that religion and the church are both 
important have a mean A-S score of 180.7, th e other subjects, those who 
are against religion and the church generally, those who accept religion 
but not the church, and those who emphasize the personal, ethical, and ra- 
tional aspects of religion, have a mean of 115-4* The difference between these 
two means is 65.3 and the C. R. is 7.3. 

5 The over-all data for this group were presented in Chapter III. 



2 I 8 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


These data may be taken to mean that for subjects high on A-S, religion 
is important primarily as a matter of convention. Subjects who are low on 
A-S may either be against religion or have a religion that is relatively per- 
sonal and internalized. The fact of acceptance or rejection of religion is not 
as important as the way in which it is accepted or rejected. 

3. SCALE ITEMS 

Three items pertaining to religious ideology were included in the scale 
which attempted to measure potentially fascistic trends in the personality. 
This scale will be described in the next chapter but it seems appropriate to 
consider here those items which touch upon the topic of religion. The first 
item was the following: “The modern church with its many rules and 
hypocrisies, does not appeal to the deeply religious person; it appeals mainly 
to the childish, the insecure, and the uncritical.” The hypothesis here was 
that disagreement with the item would indicate uncritical acceptance of 
the church and, hence, ethnocentrism, and that agreement with the item 
would indicate either an antireligious attitude or a genuinely religious 
but more intellectual point of view from which the church might be criti- 
cized— something which we should expect to go with low scores on the 
scales for measuring prejudice. The results were disappointing. The mean 
score on the item for the 295 subjects taking Form 78 of the questionnaire 
was 4.67 and the D. P. AS was — 1.18. It appeared in retrospect that the state- 
ment was too complex and awkward, and hence, frequently misunderstood. 
More than this, the high mean score indicates that relatively few people were 
ready to criticize the church in this way; this, of course, would lower the 
chances of the item’s being discriminating. Needless to say, the item was not 
retained in the questionnaire after its first trial. 

Another item in the scale was the following: “Every person should have 
a deep faith in some supernatural force higher than himself to which he 
gives total allegiance and whose decisions he does not question.” The hypoth- 
esis was that agreement with this statement, which expresses very firm belief 
in the supernatural and an attitude of submission toward it, would be asso- 
ciated with prejudice. The mean score for the 295 subjects taking Form 78 
was 3.97 and the D. P. AS , 1.26. When the item, slightly revised, was used in 
Form 60 of the questionnaire (N = 226) the mean score was 3.60 and the 
D. P.e, 1.38. These D. P.’s are large enough to indicate that the relation 
of this item to ethnocentrism approaches statistical significance. The item 
was significantly correlated with the remainder of the scale in which it 
appeared, and this total scale was highly correlated with ethnocentrism. 

The third item was as follows: “Sciences like chemistry, physics, and 
medicine have carried man very far but there are many important things 
that can never possibly be understood by the human mind.” It was considered 
that subjects in agreeing with this item conceived of a mysterious spiritual 



ETHNOCENTRISM AND RELIGIOUS ATTITUDES 219 

realm of things with respect to which investigation was taboo and toward 
which their attitude was one of reverence. This outlook was expected to 
correlate with ethnocentrism. The mean in the case of Form 78 was 4.35 
and the D. P. A s, -97* In the case of Form 60, where the item appeared in a 
slightly revised version, the mean was 4.98 and the D. P.e, 1.32- Here, once 
again, is evidence of a relationship between a particular religious idea and 
ethnocentrism. This item, like the “supernatural force” item discussed above, 
was significantly correlated with the remainder of the scale for measuring 
implicit antidemocratic trends and it was employed throughout the course 
of the study. 

These results suggest that had it been possible to express a variety of 
religious beliefs, ideas, and sentiments in the form of scale items, more im- 
pressive quantitative results bearing on the relations of religious ideology to 
ethnocentrism would have been obtained. This is a matter which might well 
be the topic of future research. 

C. DISCUSSION 

Belonging to or identifying oneself with a religious body in America today 
certainly does not mean that one thereby takes over the traditional Christian 
values of tolerance, brotherhood, and equality. On the contrary, it appears 
that these values are more firmly held by people who do not affiliate with 
any religious group. It may be that religious affiliation or church attendance 
is of little importance one way or the other in determining social attitudes, 
that the great majority of middle-class Americans identify themselves with 
some religious denomination as a matter of course, without thinking much 
about it. This would be in keeping with the facts that the mean scores and 
the variability for the large religious denominations are very similar to 
those found in our sample as a whole. It may be argued, however, that this 
conventional approach to religion expresses enough identification with the 
status quo , submission to external authority, and readiness to emphasize 
moralistically the differences between those who “belong” and those who do 
not, to differentiate, in terms of E score, members of the large denominations 
from the nonreligious and from the members of those minor groups which 
actually stand for trends of an opposite character. At the same time, mem- 
bers of the major denominations seem to differ widely among themselves 
with respect to trends of this kind, and where there are signs that the ac- 
ceptance of religion has been determined primarily by conventional or ex- 
ternal considerations, E score tends to go up. Thus it is that agreement 
between the parents in the matter of religious affiliation, a circumstance that 
might lessen the chances of an awakening on the part of the subject to the 
issues involved, and sameness of the subject’s religion and that of the 
mother, something that might be indicative of submissiveness toward au- 



220 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


thority, tend to be associated with ethnocentrism. But among the members 
of the major denominations there are many subjects whose religion would 
appear to be “genuine,” in the sense that it was arrived at more or less 
independently of external pressure and takes the form of internalized values. 
These subjects, it seems, tend to score low, often very low, on ethnocentrism. 
Subjects with this same outlook probably predominate in the low-scoring 
Protestant denominations and often, no doubt, they profess to no religious 
affiliation at all. 

It seems that we can approach an understanding of the relations between 
religion and ethnocentrism by paying attention to what the acceptance or 
the rejection of religion means to the individual. When the problem is ap- 
proached from this point of view the psychological factors which appear 
as most important are much the same as those which came to the fore in the 
preceding chapters: conformity, conventionalism, authoritarian submission, 
determination by external pressures, thinking in ingroup-outgroup terms, 
and the like vs. nonconformity, independence, internalization of values, and 
so forth. The fragmentary data on religious ideology afforded by the scale 
items lend themselves to the same mode of interpretation. An attitude of com- 
plete submissiveness toward “supernatural forces” and a readiness to accept 
the essential incomprehensibility of “many important things” strongly sug- 
gest the persistence in the individual of infantile attitudes toward the parents, 
that is to say, of authoritarian submission in a very pure form. Psychological 
variables of the kind discussed here are investigated directly in the next 
chapter. 


D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 

Subjects who profess to some religious affiliation express more prejudice 
than those who do not; but mean A-S or E scores for all the large denomina- 
tions are close to the theoretical neutral point. The vast majority of our 
subjects do identify themselves with some religious group, and the variability 
with respect to ethnocentrism among these subjects is almost as great as it is 
in our sample as a whole. The factor of religious denomination does not 
prove to be very significant. Among the largest denominations no differ- 
ences of any significance appear; but Unitarians, who seem to be distin- 
guished by their liberalism, and a group of minor Protestant groups, in the 
case of which there might be some spirit of nonconformity or some lack 
of identification with the status quo , score lower than the others. Frequency 
of church attendance is also not particularly revealing; however, the finding 
that those who never attend obtain lower E scores than those who do attend 
is added evidence that people who reject organized religion are less prej- 
udiced than those who accept it. 

When the religious affiliation of the subject is considered in relation to that 



ETHNOCENTRISM AND RELIGIOUS ATTITUDES 221 

of his parents, it appears that ethnocentrism tends to be more pronounced 
in subjects whose parents presented a unified religious front than in cases 
where the religious influence from the parents was inconsistent, partial, or 
nonexistent. Furthermore, there is an indication that agreement between 
the subject and his or her mother in the matter of religion tends to be asso- 
ciated with ethnocentrism, disagreement with its opposite. These results sug- 
gest that acceptance of religion mainly as an expression of submission to a 
clear pattern of parental authority is a condition favorable to ethnocentrism. 

A quantitative approach to religious ideology was made by including in 
one form of the questionnaire an open-ended question concerning the im- 
portance, in the subject’s mind, of religion and the church. When a cate- 
gorization of the answers to this question was made and mean A-S scores cal- 
culated, it turned out that the subjects who considered both religion and the 
church important were very considerably more anti-Semitic than were sub- 
jects who considered neither important or emphasized the ethical aspects 
of religion or differentiated between the church and “real” religion and, 
while rejecting the former, stressed the more personal and the more rational 
aspects of the latter. 

Two scale-items pertaining to religious ideology appeared to be slightly 
correlated with prejudice. The more agreement with statements to the effect 
that people should have “complete faith in some supernatural force” and 
that “there are some things that can never be understood by the human 
mind,” the higher did the A-S score tend to be. 

In general, it appeared that gross, objective factors— denomination and 
frequency of church attendance-were less significant for prejudice than 
were certain psychological trends reflected in the way the subject accepted 
or rejected religion and in the content of his religious ideology. These trends 
—conventionalism, authoritarian submission, and so forth— were generally 
the same as those which came to the fore in preceding chapters, and we turn 
now to our attempt to investigate them directly. 



CHAPTER VII 


THE MEASUREMENT OF IMPLICIT 

ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 

R. Nevitt Sanford , T. W. Adorno , Else Frenkel-Bruns r wik , and 

Daniel /. Levinson 


A. INTRODUCTION 

At a certain stage of the study, after considerable work with the A-S and 
E scales had been done, there gradually evolved a plan for constructing a 
scale that would measure prejudice without appearing to have this aim and 
without mentioning the name of any minority group. It appeared that such 
an instrument, if it correlated highly enough with the A-S and E scales, 
might prove to be a very useful substitute for them. It might be used to 
survey opinion in groups where “racial questions” were too “ticklish” a 
matter to permit the introduction of an A-S or E scale, e.g., a group which 
included many members of one or another ethnic minority. It might be used 
for measuring prejudice among minority group members themselves. Most 
important, by circumventing some of the defenses which people employ 
when asked to express themselves with respect to “race issues,” it might 
provide a more valid measure of prejudice. 

The PEC scale might have commended itself as an index of prejudice, but 
its correlations with the A-S and E scales did not approach being high 
enough. A4oreover, the items of this scale were too explicitly ideological, 
that is, they might be too readily associated with prejudice in some logical 
or automatic way. What was needed was a collection of items each of which 
was correlated with A-S and E but which did not come from an area 
ordinarily covered in discussions of political, economic, and social matters. 
The natural place to turn was to the clinical material already collected, 
where, particularly in the subjects’ discussions of such topics as the self, 
family, sex, interpersonal relations, moral and personal values,* there had 
appeared numerous trends which, it appeared, might be connected with 
prejudice. 

At this point the second— and major— purpose of the new scale began to 


222 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 223 

take shape. Might not such a scale yield a valid estimate of antidemocratic 
tendencies at the personality level? It was clear, at the time the new scale 
was being planned, that anti-Semitism and ethnocentrism were not merely 
matters of surface opinion, but general tendencies with sources, in part at 
least, deep within the structure of the person. Would it not be possible to 
construct a scale that would approach more directly these deeper, often un- 
conscious forces? If so, and if the scale could be validated by means of later 
clinical studies, would we not have a better estimate of antidemocratic po- 
tential than could be obtained from the scales that were more openly ideo- 
logical? The prospect was intriguing. And experience with clinical tech- 
niques and with the other scales gave considerable promise of success. In 
attempting to account for the generality of A-S and of E, to explain what 
it was that made the diverse items of these scales go together, we had been 
led to the formulation of enduring psychological dispositions in the person 
—stereotypy, conventionalism, concern with power, and so forth. Study 
of the ideological discussions of individuals, e.g., Mack and Larry, had had 
the same outcome: there appeared to be dispositions in each individual that 
were reflected in his discussion of each ideological area as well as in his dis- 
cussion of matters not ordinarily regarded as ideological. And when clinical- 
genetic material was examined, it appeared that these dispositions could fre- 
quently be referred to deep-lying personality needs. The task then was to 
formulate scale items which, though they were statements of opinions and 
attitudes and had the same form as those appearing in ordinary opinion- 
attitude questionnaires, would actually serve as “giveaways” of underlying 
antidemocratic trends in the personality. This would make it possible to 
carry over into group studies the insights and hypotheses derived from 
clinical investigation; it would test whether we could study on a mass scale 
features ordinarily regarded as individualistic and qualitative. 

This second purpose— the quantification of antidemocratic trends at the 
level of personality— did not supersede the first, that of measuring anti- 
Semitism and ethnocentrism without mentioning minority groups or cur- 
rent politico-economic issues. Rather, it seemed that the two might be realized 
together. The notion was that A-S and E would correlate with the new scale 
because the A-S and E responses were strongly influenced by the underlying 
trends which the new scale sought to get at by a different approach. Indeed, 
if such a correlation could be obtained it could be taken as evidence that 
anti-Semitism and ethnocentrism were not isolated or specific or entirely 
superficial attitudes but expressions of persistent tendencies in the person. 
This would depend, however, upon how successful was the attempt to 
exclude from the new scale items which might have been so frequently or 
so automatically associated with anti-Semitism or ethnocentrism that they 
might be regarded as aspects of the same political “line.” In any case, how- 
ever, it seemed that the discovery of opinions and attitudes, in various areas 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


224 

other than the usual politico-socioeconomic one, that were associated with 
anti-Semitism and ethnocentrism, would give a more comprehensive grasp 
of the prejudiced outlook on the world. The new instrument was termed 
the F scale, to signify its concern with implicit prefascist tendencies. 

On theoretical grounds it was expected that the correlations of F with A-S 
and E would not approach unity. It was hoped that the F scale would catch 
some of the antidemocratic potential that might not be expressed when sub- 
jects responded to items which dealt directly with hostility toward minority 
groups. True, the items of the present A-S and E scales were, for the most 
part, so formulated as to allow the subject to express prejudice while main- 
taining the feeling that he was being democratic. Yet it was recognized that 
a subject might score relatively low on A-S or E and still, in the interview, 
where a confidential relationship was established and the interviewer was 
very permissive, reveal that he was prejudiced. More than this, it had to be 
admitted that a subject might refuse altogether to express hostility against 
minority groups and yet reveal features, e.g., a tendency to think of such 
groups in a stereotyped way or a tendency moralistically to reject social 
groups other than ethnic ones, which had to be taken as susceptibility to anti- 
democratic propaganda. If the F scale were to be regarded as a measure 
of antidemocratic potential— something which might or might not be ex- 
pressed in open hostility against outgroups— then it could not be perfectly 
correlated with A-S or E. Rather, the demand to be made of it was that it 
single out individuals who in intensive clinical study revealed themselves to 
be receptive to antidemocratic propaganda. Although it was not possible 
within the scope of the study to use the F scale alone as the basis for selecting 
interviewees, it was possible to relate F scale score to various other indices 
of antidemocratic personality trends as brought to light by other techniques. 
Such trends, it seemed, could exist in the absence of high A-S or E scores. 

However, the distinction between potential and manifest should not be 
overdrawn. Given emotionally determined antidemocratic trends in the 
person, we should expect that in general they would be evoked by the A-S 
and E items, which were designed for just this purpose, as well as by the F 
scale and other indirect methods. The person who was high on F but not 
on A-S or E would be the exception, whose inhibitions upon the expression 
of prejudice against minorities would require special explanation. 

B. CONSTRUCTION OF THE FASCISM (F) SCALE 
1. THE UNDERLYING THEORY 

The 38 items of the original F scale are shown in Table i(VII), num- 
bered in the order of their appearance on Form 78. If the reader considers 
that most of what has gone before in this volume was either known or 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 225 

thought about before construction of the F scale began, it will be apparent 
that in devising the scale we did not proceed in a strictly empirical fashion. 
We did not consider starting with hundreds of items chosen more or less 
at random and then seeing by trial and error which ones might be associated 
with A-S and E. For every item there was a hypothesis, sometimes several 
hypotheses, stating what .might be the nature of its connection with prejudice. 

The major source of these hypotheses was the research already performed 
in the present study. Available for the purpose was the following material: 
results, such as those given in preceding chapters, from the A-S, E, and PEC 
scales; numerous correlates of E derived from questionnaire studies, that is, 
from responses to factual and short essay questions pertaining to such topics 
as religion, war, ideal society, and so forth; early results from projective 
questions; finally, and by far the most important, material from the inter- 
views and the Thematic Apperception Tests. Another important source of 
items was research in fields allied to the present one in which the authors had 
previously had a part. Principal among these were several studies performed 
at the University of California on personality in relation to war morale and 
ideology (19, 20, 102, 107, 108, 109), and researches of the Institute of 
Social Research such as content analyses of speeches of anti-Semitic agi- 
tators and a study on anti-Semitic workers (2, 3, 56, 57, 57A, 57B). Finally, 
there was the general literature on anti-Semitism and fascism, embracing 
both empirical and theoretical studies. 

It will have been recognized that the interpretation of the material of 
the present study was guided by a theoretical orientation that was present 
at the start. The same orientation played the most crucial role in the prepara- 
tion of the F scale. Once a hypothesis had been formulated concerning the 
way in which some deep-lying trend in the personality might express itself 
in some opinion or attitude that was dynamically, though not logically, re- 
lated to prejudice against outgroups, a preliminary sketch for an item was 
usually not far to seek: a phrase from the daily newspaper, an utterance by an 
interviewee, a fragment of ordinary conversation was usually ready at hand. 
(As will be seen, however, the actual formulation of an item was a technical 
proceeding to which considerable care had to be devoted.) 

As to what kinds of central personality trends we might expect to be the 
most significant, the major guide, as has been said, was the research which 
had gone before; they were the trends which, as hypothetical constructs, 
seemed best to explain the consistency of response on the foregoing scales, 
and which emerged from the analysis of clinical material as the likely sources 
of the coherence found in individual cases. Most of these trends have been 
mentioned before, usually when it was necessary to do so in order to give 
meaning to obtained results. For example, when it was discovered that the 
anti-Semitic individual objects to Jews on the ground that they violate con- 
ventional moral valfles, one interpretation was that this individual had a 



2 26 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

TABLE I (VII) 

The F Scale: Form 78 

2. Although many people may scoff, it may yet be shown that astrology can 
explain a lot of things. 

3. America is getting so far from the true American way of life that force may 
be necessary to restore it. 

6. It is only natural and right that women be restricted in certain ways in which 
men have more freedom. 

9. Too many people today are living in an unnatural, soft way; we should 
return to the fundamentals, to a more red-blooded, active way of life. 

10. It is more than a remarkable coincidence that Japan had an earthquake on 
Pearl Harbor Day, December 7, 1944. 

12. The modern church, with its many rules and hypocrisies, does not appeal 
to the deeply religious person; it appeals mainly to the childish, the insecure, 
and the uncritical. 

14. After we finish off the Germans and Japs, we ought to concentrate on other 
enemies of the human race such as rats, snakes, and germs. 

17. Familiarity breeds contempt. 

19. One should avoid doing things in public which appear wrong to others, even 
though one knows that these things are really all right. 

20. One of the main values of progressive education is that it gives the child 
great freedom in expressing those natural impulses and desires so often 
frowned upon by conventional middle-class society. 

23. He is, indeed, contemptible who does not feel an undying love, gratitude, and 
respect for his parents. 

24. Today everything is unstable; we should be prepared for a period of constant 
change, conflict, and upheaval. 

28. Novels or stories that tell about what people think and feel are more interest- 
ing than those which contain mainly action, romance, and adventure. 

30. Reports of atrocities in Europe have been greatly exaggerated for propa- 
ganda purposes. 

31. Homosexuality is a particularly rotten form of delinquency and ought to be 
severely punished. 

32. It is essential for learning or effective work that our teachers or bosses outline 
in detail what is to be done and exactly how to go about it. 

35. There are some activities so flagrantly un-American that, when responsible 
officials won’t take the proper steps, the wide-awake citizen should take the 
law into his own hands. 

38. There is too much emphasis in college on intellectual and theoretical topics, 
not enough emphasis on practical matters and on the homely virtues of living. 

39. Every person should have a deep faith in some supernatural force higher 
than himself to which he gives total allegiance and whose decisions he does 
not question. 

42. No matter how they act on the surface, men are interested in women for only 
one reason. 

43. Sciences like chemistry, physics, and medicine have carried men very far, 
but there are many important things that can never possibly be understood 
by the human mind. 

46. The sexual orgies of the old Greeks and Romans are nursery school stuff 
compared to some of the goings-on in this country today, even in circles 
where people might least expect it. 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 227 

47. No insult to our honor should ever go unpunished. 

50. Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children 
should learn. 

53. There are some things too intimate or personal to talk about even with one’s 
closest friends. 

55. Although leisure is a fine thing, it is good hard work that makes life interest- 
ing and worthwhile. 

56. After the war, we may expect a crime wave; the control of gangsters and 
ruffians will become a major social problem. 

58. What a man does is not so important so long as he does it well. 

59. Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict. 

60. Which of the following are the most important for a person to have or to 
be? Mark X the three most important. 

artistic and sensuous 

popular, good personality 

drive, determination, will power 

broad, humanitarian social outlook 

neatness and good manners 

sensitivity and understanding 

efficiency, practicality, thrift 

intellectual and serious 

emotional expressiveness, warmth, intimacy 

kindness and charity 

65. It is entirely possible that this series of wars and conflicts will be ended once 
and for all by a world-destroying earthquake, flood, or other catastrophe. 

66. Books and movies ought not to deal so much with the sordid and seamy side 
of life; they ought to concentrate on themes that are entertaining or uplifting. 

67. When you come right down to it, it’s human nature never to do anything 
without an eye to one’s own profit. 

70. To a greater extent than most people realize, our lives are governed by plots 
hatched in secret by politicians. 

73. Nowadays when so many different kinds of people move around so much 
and mix together so freely, a person has to be especially careful to protect 
himself against infection and disease. 

74. What this country needs is fewer laws and agencies, and more courageous, 
tireless, devoted leaders whom the people can put their faith in. 

75. Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than mere 
imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped. 

77. No sane, normal, decent person could ever think of hurting a close friend or 
relative. 


particularly strong and rigid adherence to conventional values, and that 
this general disposition in his personality provided some of the motivational 
basis for anti-Semitism, and at the same time expressed itself in other ways, 
e.g., in a general tendency to look down on and to punish those who were 
believed to be violating conventional values. This interpretation was sup- 
ported by results from the E and PEC scales, where it was shown that items 
expressive of conventionalism were associated with more manifest forms 
of prejudice. Accordingly, therefore, adhermce to conventional values 



228 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


came to be thought of as a variable in the person— something which could 
be approached by means of scale items of the F type and shown to be 
related functionally to various manifestations of prejudice. Similarly, a con- 
sideration of E-scale results strongly suggested that underlying several of 
the prejudiced responses was a general disposition to glorify, to be sub- 
servient to and remain uncritical toward authoritative figures of the ingroup 
and to take an attitude of punishing outgroup figures in the name of some 
moral authority. Hence, authoritarianism assumed the proportions of a 
variable worthy to be investigated in its own right. 

In the same way, a number of such variables were derived and defined, 
and they, taken together, made up the basic content of the F scale. Each 
was regarded as a more or less central trend in the person which, in accord- 
ance with some dynamic process, expressed itself on the surface in ethno- 
centrism as well as in diverse psychologically related opinions and attitudes. 
These variables are listed below, together with a brief definition of each. 

a. Conventionalism. Rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class values. 

b. Authoritarian submission. Submissive, uncritical attitude toward idealized 
moral authorities of the ingroup. 

c. Authoritarian aggression. Tendency to be on the lookout for, and to con- 
demn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values. 

d. Anti-intraception. Opposition to the subjective, the imaginative, the tender- 
minded. 

e. Superstition and stereotypy. The belief in mystical determinants of the 
individual’s fate; the disposition to think in rigid categories. 

f. Power and “ toughness .” Preoccupation with the dominance-submission, 
strong-weak, leader-follower dimension; identification with power figures; 
overemphasis upon the conventionalized attributes of the ego; exaggerated 
assertion of strength and toughness. 

g. Destructiveness and cynicism. Generalized hostility, vilification of the 
human. 

h. Projectivity. The disposition to believe that wild and dangerous things go 
on in the world; the projection outwards of unconscious emotional 
impulses. 

i. Sex. Exaggerated concern with sexual “goings-on.” 

These variables were thought of as going together to form a single syn- 
drome, a more or less enduring structure in the person that renders him re- 
ceptive to antidemocratic propaganda. One might say, therefore, that the F 
scale attempts to measure the potentially antidemocratic personality. This 
does not imply that all the features of this personality pattern are touched 
upon in the scale, but only that the scale embraces a fair sample of the 
ways in which this pattern characteristically expresses itself. Indeed, as the 
study went on, numerous additional features of the pattern, as well as varia- 
tions within the over-all pattern, suggested themselves— and it was regretted 
that a second F scale could not have been constructed in order to carry these 
explorations further. It is to be emphasized that one can speak of personality 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 229 

here only to the extent that the coherence of the scale items can be better 
explained on the ground of an inner structure than on the ground of external 
association. 

The variables of the scale may be discussed in more detail, with emphasis 
on their organization and the nature of their relations to ethnocentrism. As 
each variable is introduced, the scale items deemed to be expressive of it are 
presented. It will be noted, as the variables are taken up in turn, that the 
same item sometimes appears under more than one heading. This follows 
from our approach to scale construction. In order efficiently to cover a wide 
area it was necessary to formulate items that were maximally rich, that is, 
pertinent to as much as possible of the underlying theory— hence a single 
item was sometimes used to represent two, and sometimes more, different 
ideas. It will be noted also that different variables are represented by different 
numbers of items. This is for the reason that the scak was designed with 
first attention to the whole pattern into which the variables fitted, sofne 
with more important roles than others. 

a. Conventionalism 

12. The modem church, with its many rules and hypocrisies, does 
not appeal to the deeply religious person; it appeals mainly to the 
childish, the insecure, and the uncritical. 

19. One should avoid doing things in public which appear wrong to 
others, even though one knows that these things are really all right. 

38. There is too much emphasis in colleges on intellectual and theoreti- 
cal topics, not enough emphasis on practical matters and on the 
homely virtues of living. 

55. Although leisure is a fine thing, it is good hard work that makes life 
interesting and worthwhile. 

58. What a man does is not so important so long as he does it well. 

60. Which of the following are the most important for a person to have 
or to be? Mark X the three most important, 
artistic and sensuous 
popular, good personality 
drive, determination, will power 
broad, humanitarian social outlook 
nearness and good manners 
sensitivity and understanding 
efficiency, practicality, thrift 
intellectual and serious 
emotional expressiveness, warmth, intimacy 
kindness and charity 

It is a well-known hypothesis that susceptibility to fascism is most charac- 
teristically a middle-class phenomenon, that it is “in the culture” and, hence, 
that those who conform the most to this culture will be the most prejudiced. 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


2 3 0 

Items referring to the holding of conventional values were included in order 
to gather data bearing on this hypothesis. Many of the early findings of the 
present study, however, gave evidence that the matter was not quite so simple. 
The correlation between conventional values and prejudice seemed to be 
positive but not very high; whereas unconventional people tended to be 
free of prejudice, it was clear that some conventional people were prejudiced 
while others were not. It seemed that, among the conventional group, what 
might make the difference was the deeper source of the conventionality, or 
rather the type of broader personality structure within which it had a func- 
tional role. If the adherence to conventional values was an expression of a 
fully established individual conscience, then we should expect no necessary 
connection between these values and antidemocratic potential. The same 
standards which render the individual easily offended by what he conceives 
to be the morally loose behavior of unassimilated minority group members 
or of “lower-class” people, would— if they are well internalized— cause him 
to resist the violence and delinquency which characterize the advanced stages 
of fascism. If, on the other hand, adherence to conventional values is de- 
termined by contemporary external social pressure, if it is based upon the 
individual’s adherence to the standards of the collective powers with which 
he, for the time being, is identified, then we should expect a close association 
with antidemocratic receptivity. It is this latter state of affairs that we wish 
to call conventionalism— and to distinguish from mere acceptance of con- 
ventional values. The conventionalistic individual could in good conscience 
follow the dictates of the external agency wherever they might lead him and, 
moreover, he would be capable of totally exchanging one set of standards for 
another quite different one— as in a conversion from official Communism to 
Catholicism. 

The scale items listed under Conventionalism afford the subject an op- 
portunity to reveal whether or not his adherence to conventional values is 
of the rigid, absolutist character just described. For example, this would seem 
to be indicated by a mark of +3 on the item, “Obedience and respect for au- 
thority are the most important virtues children should learn.” However, a 
sound decision on this matter would depend on the individual’s responses to 
items in the other categories. For example, extreme conventionalism going 
with a strong inclination to punish those who violate conventional values 
is a different thing from conventional values associated with a philosophy 
of live and let live. In other words, the meaning of a high score on this 
variable, as on any of the others, is to be known from the broader context 
within which it occurs. 

b. Authoritarian Submission 

20. One of the main values of progressive education is that it gives the 
child great freedom in expressing those natural impulses and desires 
so often frowned upon by conventional middle-class society. 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 23 1 

23. He is indeed contemptible who does not feel an undying love, grati- 
tude, and respect for his parents. 

32. It is essential for learning or effective work that our teachers or 
bosses outline in detail what is to be done and exactly how to go 
about it. 

39. Every person should have a deep faith in some supernatural force 
higher than himself to which he gives total allegiance and whose 
decisions he does not question. 

43. Sciences like chemistry, physics, and medicine have carried men 
very far, but there are many important things that can never pos- 
sibly be understood by the human mind. 

50. Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues 
children should learn. 

74. What this country needs is fewer laws and agencies, and more 
courageous, tireless, devoted leaders whom the people can put their 
faith in. 

77. No sane, normal, decent person could ever think of hurting a close 
friend or relative. 

Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the 
individual to the state, and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, 
correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a 
search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into 
account . 1 These attitudes have indeed been so regularly mentioned in associa- 
tion with anti-Semitism that it was particularly difficult to formulate items 
that would express the underlying trend and still be sufficiently free of logical 
or direct relations to prejudice— and we cannot claim to have been entirely 
successful. Direct references to dictatorship and political figures were avoided 
for the most part, and the main emphasis was on obedience, respect, rebel- 
lion, and relations to authority in general. Authoritarian submission was 
conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to 
a variety of authority figures— parents, older people, leaders, supernatural 
power, and so forth. 

The attempt was made to formulate the items in such a way that agree- 
ment with them would indicate not merely a realistic, balanced respect for 
valid authority but an exaggerated, all-out, emotional need to submit. This 
would be indicated, it seemed, by agreement that obedience and respect for 
authority were the most important virtues that children should learn, that a 
person should obey 'without question the decisions of a supernatural power, 
and so forth. It was considered that here, as in the case of conventionalism, 
the subservience to external agencies was probably due to some failure in 

1 E. Fromm (42), E. H. Erikson (25), A. Maslow (79), M. B. Chisholm (18), and W. 
Reich (96) are among the writers whose thinking about authoritarianism has influenced 
our own. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


232 

the development of an inner authority, i.e., conscience. Another hypothesis 
was that authoritarian submission was commonly a way of handling ambival- 
ent feelings toward authority figures: underlying hostile and rebellious im- 
pulses, held in check by fear, lead the subject to overdo in the direction of 
respect, obedience, gratitude, and the like. 

It seems clear that authoritarian submission by itself contributes largely 
to the antidemocratic potential by rendering the individual particularly re- 
ceptive to manipulation by the strongest external powers. The immediate 
connection of this attitude with ethnocentrism has been suggested in earlier 
chapters: hostility against ingroup authorities, originally the parents, has 
had to be repressed; the “bad” aspects of these figures— that they are unfair, 
self-seeking, dominating— are then seen as existing in outgroups, who are 
charged with dictatorship, plutocracy, desire to control, and so forth. And 
this displacement of negative imagery is not the only way in which the 
repressed hostility is handled; it seems often to find expression in authoritarian 
aggression. 

c. Authoritarian Aggression 

6. It is only natural and right that women be restricted in certain ways 
in which men have more freedom. 

23. He is indeed contemptible who does not feel an undying love, grati- 
tude, and respect for his parents. 

31. Homosexuality is a particularly rotten form of delinquency and 
ought to be severely punished. 

47. No insult to our honor should ever go unpunished. 

75. Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than 
mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped. 

The individual who has been forced to give up basic pleasures and to live 
under a system of rigid restraints, and who therefore feels put upon, is likely 
not only to seek an object upon which he can “take it out” but also to be par- 
ticularly annoyed at the idea that another person is “getting away with some- 
thing.” Thus, it may be said that the present variable represents the sadistic 
component of authoritarianism just as the immediately foregoing one repre- 
sents its masochistic component. It is to be expected, therefore, that the 
conventionalist who cannot bring himself to utter any real criticism of 
accepted authority will have a desire to condemn, reject, and punish those 
who violate these values. As the emotional life which this person regards as 
proper and a part of himself is likely to be very limited, so the impulses, es- 
pecially sexual and aggressive ones, which remain unconscious and ego-alien 
are likely to be strong and turbulent. Since in this circumstance a wide va- 
riety of stimuli can tempt the individual and so arouse his anxiety (fear of 
punishment), the list of traits, behavior patterns, individuals, and groups 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 


*33 


that he must condemn grows very long indeed. It has been suggested before 
that this mechanism might lie behind the ethnocentric rejection of such 
groups as zootsuiters, foreigners, Other nations; it is here hypothesized that 
this feature of ethnocentrism is but a part of a more general tendency to 
punish violators of conventional values: homosexuals, sex offenders, people 
with bad manners, etc. Once the individual has convinced himself that there 
are people who ought to be punished, he is provided with a channel through 
which his deepest aggressive impulses may be expressed, even while he 
thinks of himself as thoroughly moral. If his external authorities, or the 
crowd, lend their approval to this form of aggression, then it may take the 
most violent forms, and it may persist after the conventional values, in the 
name of which it was undertaken, have been lost from sight. 

One might say that in authoritarian aggression, hostility that was orig- 
inally aroused by and directed toward ingroup authorities is displaced onto 
outgroups. This mechanism is superficially similar to but essentially dif- 
ferent from a process that has often been referred to as “scapegoating.” Ac- 
cording to the latter conception, the individual’s aggression is aroused by 
frustration, usually of his economic needs; and then, being unable due to in- 
tellectual confusion to tell the real causes of his difficulty, he lashes out 
about him, as it were, venting his fury upon whatever object is available and 
not too likely to strike back. While it is granted that this process has a role 
in hostility against minority groups, it must be emphasized that according 
to the present theory of displacement, the authoritarian must , out of an inner 
necessity, turn his aggression against outgroups. He must do so because he 
is psychologically unable to attack ingroup authorities, rather than because 
of intellectual confusion regarding the source of his frustration. If this theory 
is correct, then authoritarian aggression and authoritarian submission should 
turn out to be highly correlated. Furthermore, this theory helps to explain 
why the aggression is so regularly justified in moralistic terms, why it can 
become so violent and lose all connection with the stimulus which originally 
set it off. 

Readiness to condemn other people on moral grounds may have still an- 
other source: it is not only that the authoritarian must condemn the moral 
laxness that he sees in others, but he is actually driven to see immoral at- 
tributes in them whether this has basis in fact or not. This is a further device 
for countering his own inhibited tendencies; he says to himself, as it were: 
“I am not bad and deserving of punishment, he is.” In other words the indi- 
vidual’s own unacceptable impulses are projected onto other individuals and 
groups who are then rejected. Projectivity as a variable is dealt with more 
fully below. 

Conventionalism, authoritarian submission, and authoritarian aggression 
all have to do with the moral aspect of life— with standards of conduct, with 
the authorities who enforce these standards, with offenders against them 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


234 

who deserve to be punished. We should expect that, in general, subjects who 
score high on one of these variables will score high on the others also, inas- 
much as all three can be understood as expressions of a particular kind of 
structure within the personality. The most essential feature of this structure 
is a lack of integration between the moral agencies by which the subject lives 
and the rest of his personality. One might say that the conscience or superego 
is incompletely integrated with the self or ego, the ego here being conceived 
of as embracing the various self-controlling and self-expressing functions of 
the individual. It is the ego that governs the relations between self and outer 
world, and between self and deeper layers of the personality; the ego under- 
takes to regulate impulses in a way that will permit gratification without 
inviting too much punishment by the superego, and it seeks in general to 
carry out the activities of the individual in accordance with the demands of 
reality. It is a function of the ego to make peace with conscience, to create 
a larger synthesis within which conscience, emotional impulses, and self 
operate in relative harmony. When this synthesis is not achieved, the super- 
ego has somewhat the role of a foreign body within the personality, and it 
exhibits those rigid, automatic, and unstable aspects discussed above. 

There is some reason to believe that a failure in superego internalization is 
due to weakness in the ego, to its inability to perform the necessary syn- 
thesis, i.e., to integrate the superego with itself. Whether or not this is so, 
ego weakness would seem to be a concomitant of conventionalism and au- 
thoritarianism. Weakness in the ego is expressed in the inability to build up a 
consistent and enduring set of moral values within the personality; and it is 
this state of affairs, apparently, that makes it necessary for the individual to 
seek some organizing and coordinating agency outside of himself. Where 
such outside agencies are depended upon for moral decisions one may say 
that the conscience is externalized. 

Although conventionalism and authoritarianism might thus be regarded 
as signs of ego weakness, it seemed worthwhile to seek other, more direct, 
means for estimating this trend in personality, and to correlate this trend 
with the others. Ego weakness would, it seemed, be expressed fairly directly 
in such phenomena as opposition to introspection, in superstition and stere- 
otypy, and in overemphasis upon the ego and its supposed strength. The fol- 
lowing three variables deal with these phenomena. 

d. Anti-intraception 

28. Novels or stories that tell about what people think and feel are more 
interesting than those which contain mainly action, romance, and 
adventure. 

38. There is too much emphasis in colleges on intellectual and theoreti- 
cal topics, not enough emphasis on practical matters and on the 
homely virtues of living. 


MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 


235 


53. There are some things too intimate or personal to talk about even 
with one’s closest friends. 

55. Although leisure is a fine thing, it is good hard work that makes life 
interesting and worthwhile. 

58. What a man does is not so important so long as he does it well. 

66. Books and movies ought not to deal so much with the sordid and 
seamy side of life; they ought to concentrate on themes that are 
entertaining or uplifting. 

Intraception is a term introduced by Murray (89) to stand for “the dom- 
inance of feelings, fantasies, speculations, aspirations— an imaginative, sub- 
jective human outlook.” The opposite of intraception is extraception, “a 
term that describes the tendency to be determined by concrete, clearly ob- 
servable, physical conditions (tangible, objective facts).” The relations of 
intraception/extraception to ego weakness and to prejudice are probably 
highly complex, and this is not the place to consider them in detail. It seems 
fairly clear, however, that anti- intraception, an attitude of impatience with 
and opposition to the subjective and tender-minded, might well be a mark 
of the weak ego. The extremely anti-intraceptive individual is afraid of 
thinking about human phenomena because he might, as it were, think the 
wrong thoughts; he is afraid of genuine feeling because his emotions might 
get out of control. Out of touch with large areas of his own inner life, he is 
afraid of what might be revealed if he, or others, should look closely at him- 
self. He is therefore against “prying,” against concern with what people 
think and feel, against unnecessary “talk”; instead he would keep busy, devote 
himself to practical pursuits, and instead of examining an inner conflict, turn 
his thoughts to something cheerful. An important feature of the Nazi pro- 
gram, it will be recalled, was the defamation of everything that tended to 
make the individual aware of himself and his problems; not only was “Jew- 
ish” psychoanalysis quickly eliminated but every kind of psychology except 
aptitude testing came under attack. This general attitude easily leads to a 
devaluation of the human and an overevaluation of the physical object; when 
it is most extreme, human beings are looked upon as if they were physical 
objects to be coldly manipulated— even while physical objects, now vested 
with emotional appeal, are treated with loving care. 

e. Superstition and Stereotypy 

2. Although many people may scoff, it may yet be shown that astrol- 
ogy can explain a lot of things. 

10. It is more than a remarkable coincidence that Japan had an earth- 
quake on Pearl Harbor Day, December 7, 1944. 

39. Every person should have a deep faith in some supernatural force 
higher than himself to which he gives total allegiance and whose 
decisions he does not question. 



2 36 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


43. Sciences like chemistry, physics, and medicine have carried men 
very far, but there are many important things that can never pos- 
sibly be understood by the human mind. 

65. It is entirely possible that this series of wars and conflicts will be 
ended once and for all by a world- destroying earthquake, flood, or 
other catastrophe. 

Superstitiousness, the belief in mystical or fantastic external determinants 
of the individual’s fate, and stereotypy, 2 the disposition to think in rigid 
categories, have been mentioned so frequently in the foregoing chapters and 
are so obviously related to ethnocentrism that they need little discussion here. 
A question that must be raised concerns the relations of these trends to gen- 
eral intelligence— and the relations of intelligence to ethnocentrism. Probably 
superstition and stereotypy tend to go with low intelligence, but low in- 
telligence appears to be correlated with ethnocentrism to only a slight degree 
(see Chapter VIII). It appears likely that superstition $nd stereotypy em- 
brace, over and above the mere lack of intelligence in the ordinary sense, 
certain dispositions in thinking which are closely akin to prejudice, even 
though they might not hamper intelligent performance in the extraceptive 
sphere. These dispositions can be understood, in part at least, as expressions 
of ego weakness. Stereotypy is a form of obtuseness particularly in psycho- 
logical and social matters. It might be hypothesized that one reason why 
people in modern society— even those who are otherwise “intelligent” or “in- 
formed”— resort to primitive, oversimplified explanations of human events is 
that so many of the ideas and observations needed for an adequate account 
are not allowed to enter into the calculations: because they are affect-laden 
and potentially anxiety-producing, the weak ego cannot include them within 
its scheme of things. More than this, those deeper forces within the personal- 
ity which the ego cannot integrate with itself are likely to be projected onto 
the outer world; this is a source of bizarre ideas concerning other peoples’ 
behavior and concerning the causation of events in nature. 

Superstitiousness indicates a tendency to shift responsibility from within 
the individual onto outside forces beyond one’s control; it indicates that the 
ego might already have “given up,” that is ]to say, renounced the idea that it 
might determine the individual’s fate by overcoming external forces. It must, 
of course, be recognized that in modern industrial society the capacity of the 
individual to determine what happens to himself has actually decreased, so 
that items referring to external causation might easily be realistic and hence 
of no significance for personality. It seemed necessary, therefore, to select 
items that would express ego weakness in a nonrealistic way by making the 
individual’s fate dependent on more or less fantastic factors. 

2 Although no items pertaining specifically to stereotypy appear in Form 78 of the F 
scale, several such items do find a place in the later forms; hence, it seems well to introduce 
this concept into the discussion at this point. 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 


237 


f. Power and “ Toughness ” 

9. Too many people today are living in an unnatural, soft way; we 
should return to the fundamentals, to a more red-blooded, active 
way of life. 

35. There are some activities so flagrantly un-American that, when re- 
sponsible officials won’t take the proper steps, the wide-awake citi- 
zen should take the law into his own hands. 

47. No insult to our honor should ever go unpunished. 

70. To a greater extent than most people realize, our lives are governed 
by plots hatched in secret by politicians. 

74. What this country needs is fewer laws and agencies, and more 
courageous, tireless, devoted leaders whom the people can put their 
faith in. 

This variable refers, in the first place, to overemphasis upon the conven- 
tionalized attributes of the ego. The underlying hypothesis is that overdis- 
play of toughness may reflect not only the weakness of the ego but also the 
magnitude of the task it has to perform, that is to say, the strength of certain 
kinds of needs which are proscribed in the subject’s culture. The relations of 
ego and impulse, then, are at least as close as the relations of ego and con- 
science. Nevertheless, they may be separated for purposes of analysis, and 
other variables of the F scale refer to the deeper strata of the individual’s 
emotional life. 

Closely related to the phenomenon of exaggerated toughness is some- 
thing which might be described as a “power complex.” Most apparent in its 
manifestations is overemphasis on the power motif in human relationships; 
there is a disposition to view all relations among people in terms of such 
categories as strong-weak, dominant-submissive, leader-follower, “hammer- 
anvil.” And it is difficult to say with which of these roles the subject is the 
more fully identified. It appears that he wants to get power, to have it and 
not to lose it, and at the same time is afraid to seize and wield it. It appears 
that he also admires power in others and is inclined to submit to it— and at 
the same time is afraid of the weakness thus implied. The individual whom we 
expected to score high on this cluster readily identifies himself with the 
“little people,” or “the average,” but he does so, it seems, with little or no 
humility, and he seems actually to think of himself as strong or to believe that 
he can somehow become so. In short, the power complex contains elements 
that are essentially contradictory, and we should expect that sometimes one 
feature and sometimes another will predominate at the surface level. We 
should expect that both leaders and followers will score high on this variable, 
for the reason that the actual role of the individual seems to be less im- 
portant than his concern that leader-follower relations shall obtain. One 
solution which such an individual often achieves is that of alignment with 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


238 

power figures, an arrangement by which he is able to gratify both his need 
for power and his need to submit. He hopes that by submitting to power he 
can participate in it. For example, a man who reports that the most awe- 
inspiring experience for him would be “to shake hands with the President” 
probably finds his gratification not in submission alone but in the idea that 
some of the big man’s power has, as it were, rubbed off onto him, so that 
he is a more important person for having “shook his hand” or “known him” 
or “been there.” The same pattern of gratification can be obtained by acting 
in the role of “the lieutenant” or by functioning in a middle position in some 
clearly structured hierarchy where there is always somebody above and 
somebody below. 

The power complex has immediate relations with certain aspects of ethno- 
centrism. An individual who thinks of most human relations in such terms 
as strong versus weak is likely to apply these categories in his thinking about 
ingroups and outgroups, e.g., to conceive of “superior” and “inferior races.” 
And one of the psychologically least costly devices for attaining a sense of 
superiority is to claim it on the basis of membership in a particular “race.” 

g. Destructiveness and Cynicism 

3. America is getting so far from the true American way of life that 
force may be necessary to restore it. 

9. Too many people today are living in an unnatural, soft way; we 
should return to the fundamentals, to a more red-blooded, active 
way of life. 

14. After we finish off the Germans and Japs, we ought to concentrate 
on other enemies of the human race such as rats, snakes, and germs. 

17. Familiarity breeds contempt. 

24. Today everything is unstable; we should be prepared for a period 
of constant change, conflict, and upheaval. 

30. Reports of atrocities in Europe have been greatly exaggerated for 
propaganda purposes. 

35. There are some activities so flagrantly un-American that, when re- 
sponsible officials won’t take the proper steps, the wide-awake citi- 
zen should take the law into his own hands. 

42. No matter how they act on the surface, men are interested in women 
for only one reason. 

56. After the war, we may expect a crime wave; the control of gangsters 
and ruffians will become a major social problem. 

59. Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict. 

67. When you come right down to it, it’s human nature never to do 
anything without an eye to one’s own profit. 


MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 


2 39 

According to the present theory, the antidemocratic individual, because 
he has had to accept numerous externally imposed restrictions upon the 
satisfaction of his needs, harbors strong underlying aggressive impulses. As 
we have seen, one outlet for this aggression is through displacement onto out- 
groups leading to moral indignation and authoritarian aggression. Undoubt- 
edly this is a very serviceable device for the individual; yet, the strong 
underlying aggression seems at the same time to express itself in some other 
way— in a nonmoralized way. It was assumed, of course, that primitive ag- 
gressive impulses are rarely expressed with complete directness by adults, 
but must instead be sufficiently modified, or at least justified, so that they are 
acceptable to the ego. 

The present variable, then, refers to rationalized, ego-accepted, nonmoral- 
ized aggression. The supposition was that a subject could express this ten- 
dency by agreeing with statements which though thoroughly aggressive 
were couched in such terms as to avoid his moral censorship. Thus, some 
items offered justifications for aggression, and were formulated in such a 
way that strong agreement would indicate that the subject needed only slight 
justification in order to be ready for all-out aggression. Other items dealt with 
contempt for mankind, the theory being that here the hostility is so gen- 
eralized, so free of direction against any particular object, that the individual 
need not feel accountable for it. Still another guiding conception was that 
a person can most freely express aggression when he believes that everybody 
is doing it and, hence, if he wants to be aggressive, he is disposed to believe 
that everybody is doing it, e.g., that it is “human nature” to exploit and to 
make war upon one’s neighbors. It goes without saying that such undif- 
ferentiated aggressiveness could easily, by means of propaganda, be directed 
against minority groups, or against any group the persecution of which was 
politically profitable. 

h. Projectivity 

4 6. The sexual orgies of the old Greeks and Romans are nursery school 
stuff compared to some of the goings-on in this country today, even 
in circles where people might least expect it. 

56. After the war, we may expect a crime wave; the control of gangsters 
and ruffians will become a major social problem. 

65. It is entirely possible that this series of wars and conflicts will be 
ended once and for all by a world-destroying earthquake, flood, or 
other catastrophe. 

70. To a greater extent than most people realize, our lives are governed 
by plots hatched in secret by politicians. 

73. Nowadays when so many different kinds of people move around so 
much and mix together so freely, a person has to be especially care- 
ful to protect himself against infection and disease. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


24O 

The mechanism of projection was mentioned in connection with authori- 
tarian aggression: the suppressed impulses of the authoritarian character tend 
to be projected onto other people who are then blamed out of hand. Projec- 
tion is thus a device for keeping id drives ego-alien, and it may be taken as a 
sign of the ego’s inadequacy in carrying out its function. Indeed, in one 
sense most of the items of the F scale are projective: they involve the as- 
sumption that judgments and interpretations of fact are distorted by psycho- 
logical urges. The subject’s tendency to project is utilized, in the present 
group of items, in an attempt to gain access to some of the deeper trends in 
his personality. If the antidemocratic individual is disposed to see in the 
outer world impulses which are suppressed in himself, and we wish to know 
what these impulses are, then something may be learned by noting what 
attributes he most readily, but unrealistically, ascribes to the world around 
him. If an individual insists that someone has hostile designs on him, and 
we can find no evidence that this is true, we have good reason to suspect that 
our subject himself has aggressive intentions and is seeking by means of 
projection to justify them. A notorious example is Father Coughlin’s refer- 
ring to anti-Semitism as a “defense mechanism,” i.e., a protection of Gentiles 
against the supposed aggressive designs of the Jews. Similarly, it seemed 
that the greater a subject’s preoccupation with “evil forces” in the world, 
as shown by his readiness to think about and to believe in the existence of 
such phenomena as wild erotic excesses, plots and conspiracies, and danger 
from natural catastrophes, the stronger would be his own unconscious 
urges of both sexuality and destructiveness. 

i. Sex 

31. Homosexuality is a particularly rotten form of delinquency and 
ought to be severely punished. 

42. No matter how they act on the surface, men are interested in women 
for only one reason. 

46. The sexual orgies of the old Greeks and Romans are nursery school 
stuff compared to some of the goings-on in this country today, even 
in circles where people might least expect it. 

75. Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than 
mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped. 

Concern with overt sexuality is represented in the F scale by four items, 
two of which have appeared in connection with authoritarian aggression 
and one other as an expression of projectivity. This is an example of the close 
interaction of all the present variables; since, taken together they constitute 
a totality, it follows that a single question may pertain to two or more aspects 
of the whole. For purposes of analysis, sex may be abstracted from the 
totality as well as any of the other variables. Which of these variables are 
most basic must be determined by clinical study. In any case, it seemed that 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 24 1 

countercathexis (repression, reaction formation, projection) of sexual wishes 
was well qualified for special study. 

The present variable is conceived of as ego-alien sexuality. A strong in- 
clination to punish violators of sex mores (homosexuals, sex offenders) may 
be an expression of a general punitive attitude based on identification with 
ingroup authorities, but it also suggests that the subject’s own sexual desires 
are suppressed and in danger of getting out of hand. A readiness to believe in 
“sex orgies” may be an indication of a general tendency to distort reality 
through projection, but sexual content would hardly be projected unless the 
subject had impulses of this same kind that were unconscious and strongly 
active. The three items pertaining to the punishment of homosexuals and of 
sex criminals and to the existence of sex orgies may, therefore, give some 
indication of the strength of the subject’s unconscious sexual drives. 

2. THE FORMULATION OF SCALE ITEMS 

The considerations which guided the formulation of items in the scales 
described in previous chapters held as well for the F scale. There were several 
principles which, though a part of our general approach to scale construc- 
tion, had particular significance for the present scale. In the first place, the 
item should have a maximum of indirectness , in the sense that it should not 
come close to the surface of overt prejudice and it should appear to be as 
far removed as possible from our actual interest. From this point of view, 
items such as 2 (Astrology) and 65 (Flood) were regarded as superior to 
items such as 74 (Tireless leaders) and 3 (Force to preserve). The latter two 
items, admittedly, could very well express certain aspects of an explicit 
fascist ideology, yet, as indicated above, statements touching upon the leader 
idea and the idea of force were definitely called for on theoretical grounds. 
More than this, there was a question of whether the aim of constructing a 
scale to correlate with E would be better served by the most indirect items 
or by the more direct ones, and in this first attempt it seemed the better part 
of wisdom to include some items of both kinds. 

A second rule in item formulation was that each item should achieve a 
proper balance between irrationality and objective truth. If a statement was 
so “wild” that very few people would agree with it, or if it contained so 
large an element of truth that almost everyone would agree with it, then 
obviously it could not distinguish between prejudiced and unprejudiced 
subjects, and hence was of no value. Each item had to have some degree of 
rational appeal, but it had to be formulated in such a way that the rational 
aspect was not the major factor making for agreement or disagreement. This 
in many cases was a highly subtle matter; e.g., social historians might conceiv- 
ably agree that Item 46 (Sex orgies) is probably quite true, yet it was here re- 
garded as a possible index of projected sexuality, the argument being that 
most subjects would have no basis on which to judge its truth and would 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


2 4 2 

respond in accordance with their feelings. Since each item contained an 
element of objective truth or rational justification, an individual’s response 
to a particular item might conceivably be determined by this fact alone. 
Hence, no item taken by itself could be regarded as diagnostic of potential 
fascism. The item’s worth to the scale would have to be judged mainly in 
terms of its discriminatory power, and the meaning of an individual’s re- 
sponse to it would have to be inferred from his total pattern of response. If 
a man marks +3 on Item 46 (Sex orgies) but marks — 3 or — 2 on Items 31 
(Homosexuality) and 75 (Sex Crimes), it might be concluded that he is a 
man of knowledge and sophistication; but a +3 on Item 46, accompanying 
agreement with Items 31 and 75 would seem to be a fairly good indication 
of concern with sexuality. 

Finally, it was required of each item that it contribute to the structural 
unity of the scale as a whole. It had to do its part in covering the diverse 
personality trends that entered into the broad pattern which the scale pur- 
ported to measure. While it was granted that different individuals might 
give the same response to a given item for different reasons— and this apart 
from the matter of objective truth— it was necessary that the item carry suf- 
ficient meaningfulness so that any response to it could, when responses on 
all items were known, be interpreted in the light of our over-all theory. 

C. RESULTS WITH SUCCESSIVE FORMS OF THE F SCALE 

1. STATISTICAL PROPERTIES OF THE PRELIMINARY SCALE (FORM 78) 

The preliminary F scale, made up of the 38 items listed above, was admin- 
istered as a part of questionnaire Form 78 to four groups of subjects in the 
spring of 1945. These groups were described in Chapter III, and they are 
listed in Table 11 (III). 

The scoring of the scale followed the procedures used with the A-S, E, 
and PEC scales. Except in the case of negative items, a mark of +3 was scored 
7, -j-2 was scored as 6, and so on. Items 12, 20, and 28 are negative (they 
state the unprejudiced position), and here, of course, a mark of +3 was 
scored 1, and so on. Table 2 (VII) gives the reliability coefficients, mean 
scores per item, and Standard Deviations for these four groups. The mean 
reliability of .74 is within the range ordinarily regarded as adequate for group 
comparisons, but well below what is required of a truly accurate instrument. 
It might be said that, considering the diversity of elements that went into the 
F scale, the degree of consistency indicated by the present figure is all that 
could be expected of this preliminary form of the scale. The question was 
whether by revision of the scale it might be possible to attain the degree of 
reliability that characterizes the E scale, or whether we might be dealing 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 243 

here— as seemed to be the case in the PEC scale— with areas of response in 
which people are simply not very consistent. 

It may be noted that the Professional Women show considerably more 
consistency than do the other groups of subjects, their reliability coefficient 
of .88 being in the neighborhood of that regularly obtained with the E scale. 
Since these women are considerably older, on the average, than our other 
subjects, it may be suggested that the higher reliability is due to their greater 
consistency of personality. 

There appears to be no ready explanation for the low reliability found in 
the case of the Public Speaking Men. It may be noted that the Standard 
Deviation and the range for this group were also unusually small. Adequate 
explanation would require data from a larger sample of men and from an 
improved F scale. 

Examination of Table 2 (VII) shows that there are no extremely high 
and no extremely low scores in any of the groups and that the obtained 

TABLE 2 (VII) 

RELIABILITY OP THE F SCALE (FORM 78) a 


Property 


Group 


Over-all b 


A 

B 

C 

D 


Reliability 

.78 

.56 

.72 

.88 

.74 

Mean (total) 

3.94 

3.72 

3. 75 

3.43 

3.71 

Mean (odd half) 

3. 80 

3.59 

3. 60 

3.22 

3. 55 

Mean (even half) 

4.08 

3.87 

3.91 

3.64 

3. 88 

S.D. (total) 

.71 

. 57 

.70 

.86 

.71 

S. D. (odd half) 

.87 

.71 

.85 

.94 

.84 

S. D. (even half) 

.69 

.65 

.76 

.84 

. 74 

N 

140 

52 

40 

63 

295 

Range 

2. 12-5. 26 

2. 55-4. 87 

2. 39-5.05 

1.68-5. 63 

1.68-5.63 


a The four groups on which these data are based are: 

Group A: U. C. Public Speaking Class Women. 

Group B: U. C. Public Speaking Class Men. 

Group C: U. C. Extension Psychology Class Women. 

Group D: Professional Women. 

b In obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not 
weighted by N. 

means are near the neutral point. The relatively narrow distribution of 
scores— narrow as compared with those obtained from the other scales— may 
be in part a result of lack of consistency within the scale: unless the items are 
actually expressive of the same general trend, we could hardly expect an 
individual to respond to the great majority of them with consistent agree- 
ment or consistent disagreement. On the other hand, it is possible that the 






244 the authoritarian personality 

present sample does not contain subjects who are actually extreme with 
respect to the pattern which the F scale was designed to measure. This cir- 
cumstance (lowered “range of talent”) would tend to lower the reliability 
coefficients. 

The F scale correlated .53 with A-S and .65 with E, in Form 78. 

2. ITEM ANALYSIS AND REVISION OF THE PRELIMINARY SCALE 

Data obtained from the initial four groups of subjects were used in 
attempting to improve the F scale— to increase its reliability and to shorten 
it somewhat, without loss in its breadth or meaningfulness. As with the other 
scales, the Discriminatory Power of an item provided the major statistical 
basis for judging its worth. Since it was intended that the F scale should not 
only have internal consistency but should also correlate highly with overt 
prejudice, attention was given both to the item’s relation to the total F scale 
and to its ability to discriminate between high and low scorers on the A-S 
scale. An item’s Discriminatory Power in terms of A-S (D. P. A -s) is simply 
the difference between the mean score of the high A-S quartile on that item 
and the mean score of the low A-S quartile on the item. Table 3 (VII) gives 
for each item the mean score, the Discriminatory Power in terms of high vs. 
low scorers on F (D. P. F ), the D. P. F ’s order of merit, the D. P. A - S , the latter’s 
order of merit and, finally, the item’s rank in a distribution of the sums of 
the D. P. F plus the D. P. A _ s . This final rank order was a convenient index of 
the item’s statistical “goodness” for our over-all purpose. 

The average D. P. F , 1.80, is considerably below that found in the case of 
the A-S or E scales. Yet it indicates that, in general, the items yield statis- 
tically significant differences between the high and the low quartiles. Sixteen 
D. P.’s are above 2, 18 fall in the range 1-2, and only 4 are below 1. The 
means are, in general, fairly satisfactory; they average 3.71, which is near 
the neutral point of 4.0, and only 9 means are definitely too extreme, i.e., 
above 5.0 or below 3.0. As is to be expected, only 2 of the items with extreme 
means yield D. P.’s as great as 2.0. 

The D. P.’s in terms of A-S are, of course, much lower; yet there are 17 
items which appear to be significantly related to A-S, i.e., have a D. P. A _ S 
greater than 1.0. Since it is the total F pattern that we expect to correlate 
with A-S and E, it is not necessary that each single F item by itself be sig- 
nificantly related to the latter. In general, items which are most discriminating 
in terms of F tend to discriminate best in terms of A-S, though there are 
some striking exceptions. In deciding whether to retain an item for use in a 
revised scale most weight was given to the D. P. F and to the general prin- 
ciples guiding our scale construction; these things being equal, the greater 
an item’s D, P. A _ S , the greater its chances of being included in the revised 
scale. 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 


H5 


TABLE 3 (VII) 


MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS OF THE F- SCALE ITEMS (FORM 78 ) a 



Item 

Mean 

D. P. p 

Rank 

D.P.p 

D.P.Als 

Rank 
D.P. AS 

Final Rank d 
(D.P.p+D.P. Ag) 

2. 

(Astrology) 

2.60 

1.74 

(22) 

1. 24 

(ID 

(18) 

3. 

(Force to preserve) 

3. 04 

1.98 

(18) 

1. 05 

(17) 

(15) 

6. 

(Women restricted) 

2.93 

1.75 

(21) 

0.41 

(32) 

(26) 

9. 

(Red-blooded life) 

3. 99 

2.04 

(15) 

-0.08 

(35) 

(29) 

10. 

(Pearl Harbor Day) 

2. 22 

2. 20 

(9) 

1. 37 

(6) 

(8) 

12. 

(Modern church) 

4. 67 

0. 19 

(38) 

-1. 18 

(38) 

(38) 

14- 

(Rats. . . germs) 

4.44 

1. 60 

(26. 5) 

0.85 

(24) 

(23. 5) 

17- 

(Familiarity) 

3. 33 

1.86 

(19) 

1.56 

(4) 

(10) 

19. 

(One should avoid) 

3. 63 

0.76 

(36) 

0.70 

(27) 

(35) 

20. 

(Progressive education) 

3. 28 

1.07 

(33) 

-0. 25 

(37) 

(37) 

23. 

(Undying love) 

3.62 

2. 61 

(4) 

1. 17 

(13) 

(5) 

24. 

(Things unstable) 

5.01 

0.79 

(35) 

0.88 

(22) 

(33) 

28. 

(Novels or stories) 

3.02 

1. 29 

(30) 

0.76 

(26) 

(27) 

30- 

(Reports of atrocities) 

4. 20 

0.43 

(37) 

0. 66 

(28) 

(36) 

31. 

(Homosexual s) 

3. 22 

2. 16 

(10) 

1. 18 

(12) 

(13) 

32. 

(Essential for learning) 

3.31 

1. 67 

(24) 

1. 10 

(16) 

(20) 

35. 

(Law in own hands) 

2. 50 

1.42 

(29) 

0.62 

(29. 5) 

(28) 

38- 

(Emphasis in college) 

3.91 

1.20 

(31) 

1. 14 

(15) 

(25) 

39. 

(Supernatural force) 

3. 97 

2. 54 

(6) 

1.26 

(9. 5) 

(4) 

42. 

(For one reason) 

2.06 

1.05 

(34) 

0. 59 

(31) 

(34) 

43. 

(Sciences like chemistry) 

4.35 

2.79 

(3) 

0.97 

(18) 

(6) 

46- 

(Sex orgies) 

3. 64 

2. 11 

(12. 5) 

0.93 

(20) 

(14) 

47- 

(Honor) 

3.00 

2. 09 

(14) 

1. 65 

(3) 

(7) 

50. 

(Obedience and respect) 

3.72 

3.09 

(1) 

1.55 

(5) 

(2) 

53. 

(Things too intimate) 

4.82 

1.99 

(17) 

-0. 23 

(36) 

(32) 

55. 

(Leisure) 

5.20 

2. 11 

(12. 5) 

1. 26 

(9.5) 

(ID 

56- 

(Crime wave) 

4. 60 

1. 16 

(32) 

0. 62 

(29. 5) 

(31) 

58- 

(What a man does) 

3. 48 

1.70 

(23) 

0.87 

(23) 

(22) 

59. 

(Always war) 

4. 26 

2.59 

(5) 

1.91 

(2) 

(3) 

60. 

(Important values) 

4. 17 

1. 60 

(26.5) 

0. 31 

(34) 

(30) 

65- 

(World catastrophe) 

2. 58 

1.55 

(28) 

0.90 

(21) 

(23.5) 

66. 

(Books and movies) 

4. 10 

2. 48 

(7) 

0. 38 

(33) 

(19) 

67. 

(Eye to profit) 

3. 71 

2. 21 

(8) 

0.78 

(25) 

(17) 

70. 

(Plots by politicians) 

3. 27 

1. 85 

(20) 

1. 15 

(14) 

(16) 

73. 

(Infection and disease) 

4.79 

2.02 

(16) 

1. 34 

(8) 

(12) 

74. 

(Tireless leaders) 

5.00 

1.66 

(25) 

0.94 

(19) 

(21) 

75- 

(Sex crimes) 

3. 26 

2.81 

(2) 

2.07 

(1) 

(1) 

77. 

(No sane person) 

4. 12 

2. 12 

(ID 

1. 36 

(7) 

(9) 

Mean/Per son/ 1 tern 

3.71 

1. 80 


0.89 




^The four groups on which these data are based are: Group A: U. C. Public Speaking 
Class Women (N = 140); Group B: U. C. Public Speaking Class Men (N = 52) I Croup 
C: U. C. Extension Psychology Class Women (N = 40) ; Group D: Professional Women 
(N = 63). In obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not 
weighted by N. 

bp.P.p is based on the difference between the high quartile and the low quartile 
on the F scale distribution. 

C D.P. A S is based on the difference between the high quartile and the low quartile 
on tne A-S scale distribution. E. g. , the D.P. a s of 1-24 on Item 2 indicates 
that the mean of the low quartile on A-S was 1.24 points lower than the mean of 
the high quartile on A-S. 

dpor each item the sum of D.P. p + D.P. a s is obtained. The final rank of an item 
is the rank of this sum in the distribution of sums for the whole scale. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


246 

We may now inquire what it is that distinguishes the items which turned 
out well statistically from those that turned out poorly. Can any general 
statements be made about each of these two groups of items that can serve 
as guides in the formulation of new items? The first question concerns the 
nine groups of items chosen to represent the variables that entered into the 
conceptualization of F. Do most of the items with high D. P.’s pertain to a 
few of the variables? Are there some variables which simply do not belong 
to the pattern we are considering? Three of the clusters, Sex, Authoritarian 
Aggression, and Authoritarian Submission, had mean D. P.’s above 2.0, the 
remaining clusters having mean D. P.’s in the range 1.26-1.80. Projectivity 
(1.70), Destructiveness and Cynicism (1.56), and Conventionalism (1.26) 
were the least satisfactory. However, it is to be noted that every cluster has 
within it at least one item with a D. P. above 2.0. At this stage, therefore, it 
seemed best not to eliminate any of the variables but to give attention to 
improving or replacing the poorer items found in each cluster. 

Turning to a consideration of items which proved to be outstandingly 
good in the statistical sense, we note that Item 75 (Sex crimes) leads all the 
rest, i.e., has the highest sum of D. P. F plus D. P. A -s* This item represents 
rather well the ideal to which we aspired in formulating items for the F 
scale. Not only is there a wide distribution of responses, with a mean fairly 
near the neutral point, but the item combines, apparently in a very effective 
way, several ideas which according to theory have crucial roles in prejudice: 
the underlying interest in the more primitive aspects of sex, the readiness for 
all-out physical aggressiveness, the justification of aggression by an appeal to 
moralistic values. More than this, the item seems to be sufficiently free of any 
logical or automatic connection with overt prejudice. That the next best 
item, 50 (Obedience and respect), should be outstandingly differentiating 
is not surprising since this kind of authoritarianism is a well-known aspect of 
the fascist outlook. The device of putting the authoritarianism in a context 
of child training seems to remove it from the surface of ethnocentrism; but 
whether or not this is true, the item pertains to an aspect of the fascist philos- 
ophy that could in no case be left out of account. 

Third in the rank order of goodness is Item 59, “Human nature being what 
it is, there will always be war and conflict.” This item, from the Destructive- 
ness and Cynicism cluster, expresses several ideas which are particularly 
important in the F syndrome. In addition to an element of overt antipacifist 
opinion, there is contempt for men and acceptance of the “survival of the 
fittest” idea as a rationalization for aggressiveness. The next item, 39 (Super- 
natural force), seems to express very well the tendency to shift responsibility 
to outside forces beyond one’s own control. This is a manifestation of what 
has been termed ego weakness; the item has also been placed in the Authori- 
tarian Submission cluster on the ground that faith in a supernatural force is 
related to faith in ingroup authorities. It was not expected that the presence 


MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 247 

of religious feeling and belief would by itself be significant for prejudice; 
the aim in devising the present item was to compose a statement which was 
so extreme that not too many subjects would agree with it and which placed 
enough emphasis upon “total allegiance” and obedience “without question” 
so that the uncritically submissive person could distinguish himself. The 
mean of 3.97 and the D. P. F of 2.54 indicate that this aim was largely realized. 
Item 23 (Undying love), which ranked fifth in order of goodness, expresses 
extreme moral conventionality and ingroup feeling related to the family. It 
has a place in both the Authoritarian Submission and the Authoritarian Ag- 
gression clusters, because it includes both allegiance to the ingroup and a 
punishing attitude (“He is indeed contemptible”) toward those who violate 
this value. The statement is so exaggerated, so expressive, as it seems, of the 
“protesting too much” attitude that we may wonder if strong agreement 
with it does not mask underlying but inhibited rebellious hostility against 
parents and parent figures. 

Concerning all five of these items it may be said that they are highly diverse 
in their surface content, that they pertain to various aspects of the underlying 
theory— superego, ego, and id are expressed— and that with the possible ex- 
ception of Item 50 (Obedience and respect) they are highly indirect in the 
present sense of the term. Indeed, as one examines further the ranking of the 
items in terms of their Discriminatory Powers— (Sciences like chemistry), 
(Honor), (Pearl Harbor Day), (No sane person), (Familiarity), (Leisure), 
(Infection and disease)— he may note that, in general, items which are best 
in the statistical sense are those which seem best in their formulation and in 
terms of our over-all theory and method of approach. 

Items which turned out to be poor in the statistical sense are, in retrospect, 
easy to criticize. In some instances there was a failure in formulation: the 
statement was so unclear or ambiguous that many of the subjects, apparently, 
drew from it different implications from those intended. This would seem 
to have been true particularly of Items 12 (Modern church) and 20 (Pro- 
gressive education). In other instances, e.g., Items 24 (Things unstable), 
74 (Tireless leaders), and 58 (Crime wave), the statements contained too 
large an element of truth or rational justification and so appealed, as shown 
by the high mean scores, to both high and low scorers. Again, some of the 
items were too crude or openly aggressive, so that most of the high scorers 
as well as the low scorers tended to disagree. For example, Items 42 (For one 
reason) and 35 (Law in own hands) have both low means and low D. P.’s. 

3. THE SECOND F SCALE: FORM 60 

In preparing the new form of the questionnaire, the E and PEC scales were 
shortened so drastically that a comparatively long F scale (34 items) could 
still be used without allowing the total number of scale items to go above 60. 
Since we were still faced with the task of producing a reliable F scale, with- 



248 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE 4 (VII) 

The F Scale: Form 60 

a. Conventionalism : Rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class values. 

1. Obedience and respect for authority are the most important 
virtues children should learn. 

6. A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly 
expect to be liked and accepted by decent people. 

53. One main trouble today is that people talk too much and work 
too little. 

b. Authoritarian Submission : Submissive, uncritical attitude toward 

idealized moral authorities of the ingroup. 

1. Obedience and respect for authority are the most important 
virtues children should learn. 

7. Science has carried man very far, but there are many important 
things that can never possibly be understood by the human mind. 

11. Every person should have complete faith in some supernatural 
power whose decisions he obeys without question. 

23. Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as they grow 
up they ought to get over them and settle down. 

29. No sane, normal, decent person could ever think of hurting a 
close friend or relative. 

32. What this country needs most, more than laws and political 
programs, is a few courageous, tireless, devoted leaders in whom 
the people can put their faith. 

44. In order for us to do good work, it is necessary that our bosses 
outline carefully what is to be done and exactly how to go 
about it. 

c. Authoritarian Aggression: Tendency to be on the lookout for, and 

to condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional 

values. 

6. A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly 
expect to be liked and accepted by decent people. 

17. An insult to our honor should always be punished. 

19. What the youth needs most is strict discipline, rugged deter- 
mination, and the will to work and fight for family and country. 

22. The trouble with letting everybody have a say in running the 
government is that so many people are just naturally stupid or 
full of wild ideas. 

34. Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more 
than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly 
whipped, or worse. 

39. There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel 
a great love, gratitude, and respect for his parents. 

49. Most of our social problems would be solved if we could some- 
how get rid of the immoral, crooked, and feebleminded people. 

53. One main trouble today is that people talk too much and work 
too little. 

58. Homosexuals are nothing but degenerates and ought to be 
severely punished. 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 


249 


d. Anti-intraception: Opposition to the subjective, the imaginative, the 

tender-minded. 

16. When a person has a problem or worry, it is best for him not to 
think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things. 

30. Some cases of feeblemindedness are caused by overstudy. 

45. Nowadays more and more people are prying into matters that 
should remain personal and private. 

53. One main trouble today is that people talk too much and work 
too little. 

e. Superstition and Stereotypy: The belief in mystical determinants of 

the individual’s fate; the disposition to think in rigid categories. 

7. Science has carried man very far, but there are many important 
things that can never possibly be understood by the human mind. 

11. Every person should have complete faith in some supernatural 
power whose decisions he obeys without question. 

18. It is more than just chance that Japan had an earthquake on 
Pearl Harbor Day, December 7, 1944. 

24. Some people are bom with the urge to jump from high places. 

30. Some cases of feeblemindedness are caused by overstudy. 

35. People can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and 
the strong. 

40. Some day it will probably be shown that astrology can explain 
a lot of things. 

46. It is possible that wars and social troubles will be ended once 
and for all by an earthquake or flood that will destroy the whole 
world. 

50. It’s a mistake to trust anybody who doesn’t look you straight in 
the eye. 

f. Power and “T oughness Preoccupation with the dominance-submis- 

sion, strong-weak, leader-follower dimension; identification with 
power figures; overemphasis upon the conventionalized attributes 
of the ego; exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness. 

2. No weakness or difficulty can hold us back if we have enough 
will power. 

5. Any red-blooded American will fight to defend his property. 

17. An insult to our honor should always be punished. 

19. What the youth needs most is strict discipline, rugged deter- 
mination, and the will to work and fight for family and country. 

32. What this country needs most, more than laws and political 
programs, is a few courageous, tireless, devoted leaders in whom 
the people can put their faith. 

35. People can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and 
the strong. 

57. Most people don’t realize how much our lives are controlled by 
plots hatched in secret by politicians. 

g. Destructiveness and Cynicism: Generalized hostility, vilification of 

the human. 

10. Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and 
conflict. 



2 5 ° 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


25. Familiarity breeds contempt. 

41. The true American way of life is disappearing so fast that force 
may be necessary to preserve it. 

h. Projectivity: The disposition to believe that wild and dangerous things 

go on in the world; the projection outward of unconscious emo- 
tional impulses. 

36. Nowadays when so many different kinds of people move around 
so much and mix together so freely, a person has to be especially 
careful to protect himself against infection and disease. 

45. Nowadays more and more people are prying into matters that 
should remain personal and private. 

46. It is possible that wars and social troubles will be ended once and 
for all by an earthquake or flood that will destroy the whole 
world. 

52. The wild sex life of the old Greeks and Romans was tame com- 
pared to some of the goings-on in this country, even in places 
where people might least expect it. 

57. Most people don’t realize how much our lives are controlled by 
plots hatched in secret by politicians. 

i. Sex : Exaggerated concern with sexual “goings-on.” 

34. Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more 
than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly 
whipped or worse. 

52. The wild sex life of the old Greeks and Romans was tame com- 
pared to some of the goings-on in this country, even in places 
where people might least expect it. 

58. Homosexuals are nothing but degenerates and ought to be 
severely punished. 

out sacrificing breadth or meaningfulness, it seemed the better part of wis- 
dom not to undertake much shortening of it at this stage. 

The 19 items from the F scale (Form 78) that ranked highest in order of 
goodness were retained, in the same or slightly revised form, in the new scale. 
Thus, statistical differentiating power of the item was the main basis of 
selection. As stated above, however, the items which came out best statis- 
tically were, in general, those which seemed best from the point of view of 
theory, so that retaining them required no compromise with the original 
purpose of the scale. Of these items, 5 were changed in no way, revision of 
the others involved change in wording but not in essential meaning, the aim 
being to avoid too much uniformity of agreement or disagreement and, 
hence, to produce mean scores as close as possible to the neutral point. 

Given 19 items of known dependability, the task was to formulate 15 
additional ones which, singly, met the requirements of good items and which, 
taken together, covered the ground mapped out according to our theory. 
Here, criteria other than statistical ones played an important role. In attempt- 
ing to achieve a maximum of indirectness we not only eliminated items which 
were too openly aggressive (they had low D. P.’s anyway) but retained, in 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 2 5 I 

a slightly revised form, Item 65 (World catastrophe) despite its relatively 
low D. P. (R. O. 23.5), because it expressed a theoretically important idea 
and appeared on the surface to be almost completely removed from “race” 
prejudice and fascism. In the name of breadth , Item 67 (Eye to profit), 
whose D. P. was not low (R. O. 21), was eliminated because of its too great 
similarity to the highly discriminating Item 59 (Always war). To cover a 
great variety of ideas as efficiently as possible, two or more of them were 
combined in the same statement, e.g., “Any red-blooded American will fight 
to defend his property ” or “. . . people think too much and work too little.” 
With attention to these criteria, and to meaningfulness , contribution to the 
structural unity of the scale , and proper degree of rational justification , 4 
items from the F scale (Form 78) whose D. P. rank orders were lower than 
19, were revised and 11 new items were formulated to complete the new 
form. The 34 items, grouped according to the variables which they were 
supposed to represent, are shown in table 4 (VII). 

Reliability of the scale, mean score per item, S. D., and the range of scores 
for each of the five groups to whom the F scale (Form 60) was given are 
shown in Table 5 (VII). The reliability of the scale is a considerable im- 
provement over that obtained with Form 78 (.87 as compared with .74); it 

TABLE 5 (VII) 

RELIABILITY OF THE F SCALE (FORM 60) a 


Property 



Group 



Over-all** 


I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 


Reliability 

86 

.91 

.89 

.87 

.81 

.87 

Mean (total) 

3.32 

3.39 

3.82 

3.74 

3.25 

3.50 

Mean (odd half) 

3.41 

3.42 

4.09 

3.78 

3. 19 

3.58 

Mean (even half) 

3. 24 

3.36 

3. 56 

3.73 

3.28 

3. 43 

S.D. (total) 

.86 

.96 

.93 

.81 

.71 

.85 

S.D. (odd half) 

.97 

1.03 

.99 

.77 

.83 

.92 

S.D. (even half) 

.75 

.96 

.97 

.93 

.76 

.87 

N 

47 

54 

57 

68 

60 

286 

Range 

1. 00-5. 50 

1. 24-5. 50 

1. 82-4. 38 

2. 24-5.62 

1. 97-5. 35 

1. 82-5. 62 


^he five groups on which these data are based are: 


Group I: University of Oregon Student Women. 

Group II: University of Oregon and University of California Student Women. 

Group III: University of Oregon and University of California Student Men. 

Group IV: Oregon Service Club Men. 

Group V: Oregon Service Club Men (APart only). 


^In obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not weighted 
by N. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


2 5 2 

is as high as that of the shortened E scale (.87 as compared with .86) and 
much better than the reliability of .70 for the shortened PEC scale. The 
mean scores are not quite so close to the neutral point as was the case with 
Form 78 (over-all mean of 3.5 as compared with 3.7); the range and the 
variability, however, are somewhat greater. 3 

Inspection of the Discriminatory Powers of the items, as shown in Table 
6 (VII), shows once again considerable improvement over Form 78. The 
mean D. P. F is now 2.15 as compared with 1.80 for Form 78. Three D. P.’s 
are above 3.0, 18 fall in the range 2. 0-3.0, 12 are in the range 1. 0-2.0, and 
only 1 is below 1.0. The mean D. P. in terms of E, 1.53, is notably greater 
than the mean D. P. A _ S , .89, found with Form 78. There are 28 items with 
a mean D. P. E greater than 1.0; these F items are significantly related to 
ethnocentrism at the 5 per cent level of confidence or better. Each of the 
variables that entered into the F scale— Conventionalism, Superstition, etc.— 
is represented by items that are satisfactorily differentiating. 

The correlation between the F scale (Form 60) and E is, on the average, 
.69. This is a considerable improvement over the results obtained with Form 
78, where F correlated .53 with A-S and .65 with E, though it is still not quite 
as high as its intended functions require. 

4. THE THIRD F SCALE: FORMS 45 AND 40 

Although the F scale (Form 60) might be described as a fairly adequate 
instrument, it still had some obvious shortcomings, and it was hoped that 
these might be removed before the scale was used with numerous groups of 
subjects. It still contained a number of items so poor statistically that they 
contributed almost nothing to the purpose of the scale. Also, there were two 
items (numbers 12 and 18) which, despite their ranking 1 and 9 in order of 

3 It may be reported here that in the case of the University of Oregon Student Women 
Form 60 of the questionnaire was administered in two parts: Part A contained the F scale 
and one half of the PEC scale and Part B, administered a day later, contained the E scale 
and the other half of the PEC scale. The purpose of this proceeding was to test whether 
responses to the items of one scale were affected by the presence within the same question- 
naire of items from other scales. Apparently this variation in the manner of administration 
made little or no difference. When the results for the University of Oregon Student 
Women (Group 1) are compared with those for the University of Oregon and University 
of California Student Women (Group 2)— a fairly similar group— the differences in relia- 
bility, mean score, and S.D. appear to be insignificant. The same is true in the cases of the 
E and PEC scales, and reference to Table 14 (IV) and to Table 5 (V) will show. The mean 
for the group of Oregon Service Club Men (Group V) who received only the A part of 
Form 60 does seem to be somewhat lower than that of the other group of Oregon Service 
Club Men. This difference cannot, however, be attributed to the difference in the form 
of the questionnaire. More important, probably, is the fact that Group V, in contrast to 
the other group, received the questionnaire after having listened to a talk on “What to do 
with Germany.” There was at least an implicit connection between the content of the 
talk and the content of the F scale; as one of the subjects who sensed this connection said 
afterwards to our staff member, “You should have given the questionnaire before your 
talk.” 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 

TABLE 6 (VII) 


2 53 


MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS OF THE F- SC ALE ITEMS (FORM 60) a 



Item 

Mean 

D.P.p 

Rank 

D.P.p 

D.P.| 

Rank 

D.P.g 

Final Rank d 
(&P.pH>.P. E ) 

1. 

(Obedience & respect) 

4.86 

2.39 

(14) 

1. 52 

(17) 

(13) 

2. 

(Will power) 

4.44 

2.50 

(11) 

1.46 

(19) 

(12) 

5. 

(lied blooded American) 

5.49 

1.46 

(29.5) 

1. 18 

(25. 5) 

(27) 

6. 

(Bad manners) 

5.30 

1.80 

(23) 

1.56 

(13.5) 

(22) 

7. 

(Science) 

4.98 

1.71 

(24) 

1.32 

(23) 

(25) 

10. 

(War & conflict) 

4.46 

1.67 

(26) 

1.70 

(10) 

(21) 

11. 

(Supernatural power) 

3.60 

2.91 

(4) 

1. 38 

(21) 

(10) 

12. 

(Germans & Japs) 

3.71 

3. 16 

(3) 

2.83 

(1) 

(1) 

16. 

(Cheerful things) 

3. 15 

2.08 

(20.5) 

1. 18 

(25.5) 

(23) 

17. 

(Honor) 

3.14 

2. 46 

(12) 

2.34 

(4) 

(7) 

18. 

(Pearl Harbor Day) 

2.19 

2.51 

(10) 

1.83 

(9) 

(9) 

19. 

(Discipline 

& determination) 

3.68 

3. 17 

(2) 

2. 28 

(6. 5) 

(3) 

22. 

(Not everybody in gov't. ) 

2.74 

1.46 

(29.5) 

1. 17 

(27) 

(28) 

23. 

(Rebellious ideas) 

4.30 

2.70 

(7) 

2.29 

(5) 

(5) 

24. 

(Born with urge) 

2.87 

2. 60 

(8) 

2.28 

(6.5) 

(6) 

25. 

(Familiarity) 

3.30 

2.08 

(20. 5) 

1.33 

(22) 

(20) 

29. 

(No sane person) 

3.55 

2.82 

(6) 

1.95 

(8) 

(8) 

30. 

(Feebleminded) 

1.84 

1.43 

(32. 5) 

0.91 

(30) 

(30) 

32. 

(Devoted leaders) 

4. 49 

2.42 

(13) 

1.43 

(20) 

(15) 

34. 

(Sex crime) 

3.43 

2. 83 

(5) 

2.52 

(3) 

(4) 

35. 

(Two classes) 

1.44 

0. 73 

(34) 

0. 38 

(34) 

(34) 

36. 

(Infection & disease) 

4.80 

1.68 

(25) 

1.03 

(28) 

(26) 

39. 

(Love for parents) 

3. 16 

3.28 

(1) 

2.56 

(2) 

(2) 

40. 

(Astrology) 

2.56 

2. 15 

(17) 

1.66 

(11) 

(16) 

41. 

(Force to preserve) 

2.48 

2.31 

(15) 

1.56 

(13.5) 

(14) 

44. 

(Bosses outline) 

2. 46 

1.60 

(27) 

0.50 

(33) 

(33) 

45. 

(Prying) 

3.48 

2. 52 

(9) 

1.56 

(13.5) 

(11) 

46. 

(Flood) 

2. 15 

1.43 

(32. 5) 

0.94 

(29) 

(29) 

49. 

(Rid of immoral people) 

2.74 

2.12 

(19) 

1. 56 

(13.5) 

(18) 

50. 

(Mistake to trust) 

2. 12 

1.45 

(31) 

0. 84 

(31) 

(31) 

52. 

(Sex life) 

3. 18 

2. 13 

(18) 

1.50 

(18) 

(19) 

53. 

(Talk too much) 

3.87 

1.83 

(22) 

1.24 

(24) 

(24) 

57. 

(Plots) 

4. 24 

1.55 

(28) 

0.63 

(32) 

(32) 

58. 

(Homosexuals) 

2. 29 

2.20 

(16) 

1. 54 

(16) 

(17) 

Mean/Person/ Item 

3.42 

2. 15 


1.53 




^The four groups on which these data are based are: 

Group I: University of Oregon Student Women (N = 47) 

Group II: University of Oregon and University of California Student Women (N=54) 
Group III: University of Oregon and University of California Student Men (N = 57) 
Group IV: Oregon Service Club Men (N = 68) 

In obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not weighted 
according to N. 

^D.P.p is based on the difference between the high quartile and the low quartile 
of the F scale distribution, 

^P.p is based on the difference between the high quartile and the low quartile 
of tne E scale distribution, e. g. , the D.P. E of 1.52 on Item 1 indicates that the 
mean of the low quartile on E was 1.52 points lower than the mean of the high 
quartile on E. 

d For each item the sum of D.P.p+D.P. g is obtained. The final rank of an item is 
the rank of this sum in the distribution of sums for the whole scale. 





254 the authoritarian personality 

goodness, had to be dropped in the early fall of 1945 because they had lost 
their war-period timeliness. More than this, experience had shown that when 
it came to working with highly diverse groups outside the University, a 
questionnaire shorter than Form 60 was highly desirable. The other scales 
having already been reduced to an absolute minimum, the F scale had now 
to bear some of the pruning. Yet, such pruning had to be extremely judicious 
if the scale was not to lose in comprehensiveness and if, as was hoped, its 
reliability and its correlation with E were to be raised. Thirty was the num- 
ber of items decided upon. 

Revision consisted mainly in discarding seven items and adding three new 
ones. Two excellent items were discarded because, as mentioned above, they 
were no longer timely. Five items were taken out because they had relatively 
very low D. P.’s and because other items seemed to fulfill the same functions 
better: 44 (Bosses outline, R. O. 33), 50 (Mistake to trust, R. O. 31), 30 
(Feebleminded, R. O. 30), 22 (Not everybody in government, R. O. 28), 
and 5 (Red-blooded American, R. O. 27). Several items which ranked low 
in terms of D. P. were thoroughly revised and kept in the new scale: 35 (Two 
classes, R. O. 34), 57 (Plots, R. O. 32), and 46 (Flood, R. O. 29). 

One of the three new items was the following: “The businessman and the 
manufacturer are much more important to society than the artist and the 
professor.” This is a slightly revised version of an item which appeared in 
the earlier forms of the PEC scale, where it had proved to be discriminatory 
both in terms of PEC and in terms of E. Since this item expresses rather well 
both conventionalism and anti-intraception, it appeared to be a promising 
addition to the F scale. 

A second new item was, “It is best to use some prewar authorities in Ger- 
many to keep order and prevent chaos.” At the time this item was formulated 
— late summer 1945 — General Patton had been accused of using German 
Nazis and extremely conservative bigwigs to help carry out certain phases 
of the occupation. His critics argued that this was a poor way to secure the 
cooperation of democratic elements in Germany; his defenders pointed to 
the necessity for promoting efficiency and preventing chaos. The issue was 
a lively one; and it appeared that an item bearing upon it might give the 
high scorer a chance to express his admiration for military authority, his 
means-centeredness, his preoccupation with order vs. chaos. (That the item 
did not work very well is probably due to inadequate wording: we had not 
dared to be sufficiently explicit about which prewar authorities were to be 
used, so that “prewar” could be taken to mean “pre-Nazi.”) 

“Nobody ever learned anything really important except through suffer- 
ing,” was the third of the new items. Here the temptation-constantly present 
during each revision of the F scale-to test a new hypothesis, or better, to 
obtain quantitative data bearing upon a phenomenon which in clinical study 
had appeared in relation to the general pattern of potential fascism, became 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 


255 


TABLE 7 (VII) 

F-Scale Clusters: Forms 45 and 40 

a. Conventionalism : Rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class 

/ values. 

y 1. Obedience and respect for authority are the most important 
virtues children should learn. 

12. A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly 
expect to get along with decent people. 

37. If people would talk less and work more, everybody would be 
better off. 

41. The business man and the manufacturer are much more important 
to society than the artist and the professor. 

b. Authoritarian Submission : Submissive, uncritical attitude toward 

idealized moral authorities of the ingroup. 

1. Obedience and respect for authority are the most important vir- 
tues children should learn. 

4. Science has its place, but there are many important things that 
can never possibly be understood by the human mind. 
yJL Every person should have complete faith in some supernatural 
power whose decisions he obeys without question. 

21. Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as they grow up 
they ought to get over them and settle down. 

23. What this country needs most, more than laws and political pro- 
1 y grams, is a few courageous, tireless, devoted leaders in whom the 
people can put their faith. 

42. No sane, normal, decent person could ever think of hurting a 
close friend or relative. 

44. Nobody ever learned anything really important except through 
suffering. 

c. Authoritarian Aggression : Tendency to be on the lookout for, and 

to condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional 
values. 

12. A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly 
expect to get along with decent people. 

13. What the youth needs most is strict discipline, rugged determina- 
tion, and the will to work and fight for family and country. 

19. An insult to our honor should always be punished. 

25. Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more 
than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly 
whipped, or worse. 

27. There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel 
a great love, gratitude, and respect for his parents. 

34. Most of our social problems would be solved if we could some- 
how get rid of the immoral, crooked, and feebleminded people. 

37. If people would talk less and work more, everybody would be 
better off. 

39. Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be 
severely punished. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


256 


d. 




e. 


l / 2 


Anti-intraception: Opposition to the subjective, the imaginative, the 
tender-minded. 

9. When a person has a problem or worry, it is best for him not to 
think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things. 

31. Nowadays more and more people are prying into matters that 
should remain personal and private. 

If people would talk less and work more, everybody would be 
better off. 

41. The businessman and the manufacturer are much more important 
to society than the artist and the professor. 

Superstition and Stereotypy: The belief in mystical determinants of 
the individual’s fate; the disposition to think in rigid categories. 

4. Science has its place, but there are many important things that 
can never possibly be understood by the human mind. 

Every person should have complete faith in some supernatural 
power whose decisions he obeys without question. 

Some people are bom with an urge to jump from high places. 
People can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the 
strong. 

Some day it will probably be shown that astrology can explain 
a lot of things. 

Wars and social troubles may someday be ended by an earth- 
quake or flood that will destroy the whole world. 


8 . 

16. 

6 . 


29, 


33 


f. Power and “ Toughness Preoccupation with the dominance-submis- 

sion, strong-weak, leader-follower dimension; identification with 
power figures; overemphasis upon the conventionalized attributes 
of the ego; exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness. 

2. No weakness or difficulty can hold us back if we have enough 
will power. 

13. What the youth needs most is strict discipline, rugged deter- 
mination, and the will to work and fight for family and country. 

19. An insult to our honor should always be punished. 

22. It is best to use some prewar authorities in Germany to keep order 
and prevent chaos. 

23. What this country needs most, more than laws and political pro- 
grams, is a few courageous, tireless, devoted leaders in whom the 
people can put their faith. 

26. People can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the 
strong. 

/ 38. Most people don’t realize how much our lives are controlled by 
^ plots hatched in secret places. 

g. Destructiveness and Cynicism: Generalized hostility, vilification of 

the human. 

6. Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and 
conflict. 

43. Familiarity breeds contempt. 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 257 

h. Projectivity: The disposition to believe that wild and dangerous things 

go on in the world; the projection outwards of unconscious emo- 
tional impulses. 

18. Nowadays when so many different kinds of people move around 
and mix together so much, a person has to protect himself es- 
pecially carefully against catching an infection or disease from 
them. 

31. Nowadays more and more people are prying into matters that 
should remain personal and private. 

33. Wars and social troubles may someday be ended by an earth- 
quake or flood that will destroy the whole world. 

35. The wild sex life of the old Greeks and Romans was tame com- 
pared to some of the goings-on in this country, even in places 
where people might least expect it. 

38. Most people don’t realize how much our lives are controlled by 
plots hatched in secret places. 

i. Sex: Exaggerated concern with sexual “goings-on.” 

; Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more 

than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly 
whipped, or worse. 

35. The wild sex life of the old Greeks and Romans was tame com- 
pared to some of the goings-on in this country, even in places 
w’here people might least expect it. 

39. Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be 
severely punished. 

too strong. The item was taken from an editorial in a prominent picture 
magazine, where it had appeared in a context of political reaction. It seemed 
well adapted to bring out the sado-masochistic theme believed to be prom- 
inent in the personality of the high scorer: he believes that he has suffered 
and, therefore, knows the important things and that those who have not suc- 
ceeded in raising their status, i.e., the underprivileged, should suffer more if 
they hope to improve their lot. The item did not work very well, its rank 
in order of goodness for men being 29. (Its D. P., 1.70, is still significant at 
the 5 per cent level, however.) It seems that this was partly because many 
subjects thought it unreasonable (the mean was 2.54), and partly because, 
where it was agreed with, it probably appealed to different subjects for dif- 
ferent reasons: if it tapped the deep-lying sado-masochistic structures in 
some high scorers, it also appealed to the surface masochism, and perhaps to 
the intraceptiveness, of some low scorers. 

The final F items, grouped according to the variables to which they per- 
tain, are presented in Table 7 (VII). 

Reliability of the scale, mean score per item, S. D., and range for each of 
the fourteen groups (total N = 1518) taking Form 40 and/or 45 are given 
in Table 8 (VII). The average of the reliability coefficients is .90, their range 
.81 to .97. Not only is there a slight improvement in reliability over Form 60 
(av. r = . 87) and a very marked improvement over the original Form 78 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


258 


TABLE 8 (VII) 


RELIABILITY OP THE P SCALE (FORMS 40 AND 45) 


Group 

N_ 

Reliability 

Mean 

S. D. 

Range 

Fora 40 ; 






George Washington Univ. Women 

132 

.84 

3.51 

.90 

1.2 - 5.4 

California Service Club Men 

63 

.94 

4.08 

1.03 

1.8 - 7.0 

Middle-Class Men 

69 

.92 

3.69 

1. 22 

1. 3 - 6. 7 

Middle-Class Women 

154 

.93 

3.62 

1.26 

1. 1 - 6.7 

Working-Class Men 

61 

.88 

4.19 

1. 18 

1. 8 - 6. 9 

Working-Class Women 

53 

. 97 

3.86 

1. 67 

1. 3 - 6. 6 

Los Angeles Men 

117 

.92 

3.68 

1.17 

1. 1 - 6.0 

Los Angeles Women 

130 

.91 

3.49 

1. 13 

1.2 - 5.8 

Mean a 

779 

.91 

3.76 

1. 20 

1. 3 - 6. 4, 

Fora 45 : 






Testing Class Women 

59 

.89 

3. 62 

. 99 

1. 3 - 5.9 

San Quentin Men Prisoners 

110 

.87 

4.73 

. 86 

2.0 - 6.8 

Psychiatric Clinic Women b 

71 

.94 

3. 69 

1.30 

1. 0 - 6. 3 

Psychiatric Clinic Men b 

50 

.89 

3.82 

1.01 

1. 7 - 5. 9 

Mean 

290 

.90 

3.96 

1.04 

1.5 - 6. 2 

Form 40 and Form 45 : 






Employment Service 






Men Veterans 

106 

.89 

3. 74 

1.04 

1.2 - 5.8 

Maritime School Men 

343 

.81 

4.06 

.77 

1. 6 - 6. 1 

Mean a 

449 

.85 

3.90 

.90 

>-• 

4 * 

1 

Ol 

<0 

Over- all mean 

1518 

. 90 

3.84 

1. 10 

1.4 - 6.3 


a In obtaining the combined group means, the individual group means were 
not weighted by N, 


b Due to a substitution of forms, the P scale for the Psychiatric Clinic 
subjects contained only 28 items. 

(av. r — .74), but the scale has now been developed to a point where it meets 
rigorous statistical requirements. A reliability of .90 may be interpreted to 
mean that the scale can place individuals along a dimension— in this case a 
broad and complex dimension— with a small margin of error. In other words, 
the score attained by an individual can be relied upon in the sense that chance 
errors of measurement have been minimized, so that in a repetition of the 
scale, at a time when political-socioeconomic conditions were generally the 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 259 

same as before, his new score would either be the same as his first or fall 
within narrow limits above or below it. The degree of reliability attained 
here is within the range which characterizes acceptable intelligence tests. 

The means, though they vary from one group to another (a matter to be 
discussed later), are fairly close, on the whole, to the neural point. As is 
to be expected from administration of the scale to a great variety of subjects, 
the range and the S. D. are greater than in previous forms. While no distri- 
bution curves have actually been made, the scatter diagrams indicate that 
they would be fairly normal in form (symmetrical but slightly platykurtic) . 
a. Internal Consistency. The Discriminatory Powers of the scale items, 
as shown in Table 9 (VII), are considerably higher on the average (2.85) 
than in the case of Form 60 (2.15). All of the items differentiate significantly 
between the high and the low quartiles. It is to be noted that numerous items 
taken over without change from Form 60 work much better here than in 
that instance. This is probably due in part to the fact that the diverse groups 
given Form 45-40 included more extreme scorers and in part to improvement 
of the scale as a whole: a good item differentiates the more sharply between 
the upper and lower quartiles the more successfully the total scale distin- 
guishes individuals who are actually extreme with respect to the trends being 
measured. 

The fact that the D. P.’s are somewhat higher, on the average, for women 
than for men is deserving of some comment. This phenomenon would seem 
to be connected with the fact that there were three groups of men— Maritime 
School, San Quentin Inmates, and Working-Class Men— in whose cases the 
reliability of the scale was relatively low (.81-.88). Since these groups of 
men were less educated than most of our subjects, there is considerable like- 
lihood that they failed to understand some of the scale items, a circumstance 
that would work against high D. P.’s as well as against reliability. Moreover, 
these are the three groups who, of all those studied, obtained the highest 
mean scores. It can be inferred from this that there was too much general 
agreement with some of the items, something which, as we have seen, tends 
to lower the D. P. This raises the question of whether we did not encounter 
in these groups not only more extreme manifestations of potential fascism 
than had been anticipated but also patterns of prefascist personality trends 
that the F scale did not adequately cover. Most of the work that went into 
the construction and revision of the scale was performed with groups of 
subjects in which the high scorers were, in the main, highly conventional. 
The procedure of retaining items which differentiated best within these 
groups was probably not the best one for constructing an instrument which 
would work with maximum efficiency in groups where tendencies to psy- 
chopathy and delinquency were much more pronounced. This is a matter 
to be discussed in more detail later. 

Despite the absolute differences in the D. P.’s between men and women, 



260 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


1 1 ®§§§Sf;£s§3§Sa§328S5SS55S5S^38 

SSgSSSSSSEg898§5SS88SSPSSSS3asg S 

° Q coc5c3weoc5cqcoM cocqcoc4<NTj3cococo<Neo^H<N <n<ncjco^« csi<n <n 

c 

i ^ ^ 

£■ "5S 10 '-'to 00*^p lf » 03 eo tO 3JT* W iO Q W Tl 2 

* § <N-h^h<£> 8£ •2^2.Cq^" ,!,< Co” <N ^ <N ^2!^ <N C'^CCSCww 

•g 05 '-''-'w'-'ww«ww'-'w'-'^h”''''wwww-H www wwwwww 

Is S8a«SgSS88S58S5t:8*e88Rasa8SSSa a 

to 


S5S«gS8S5S2g9BSS8S8S2SSSSSSS8agS |o 

WNNNWttM^NWWeONW^fOeOWNCONNWWNW-WWN « 


sSisS" ^ g^ssggsggggdt^geqdg^ggggc^ 
BSSSS5P88aS-S?Sa9a25SSS8SS5Sg8B s 

^^^rj5eoco^rj!co^co^WTj3^cqcoco<Neocqeoco<tJtcocq^eoeocsj co 


1 SdSd^SSg^SSgSdSgSs^g^s^^gSgSgg 

0» w fJ W C. '-■' ij 

o; pasgagesasssssssgeasgsssKassag 

d d<Nd<NC0d-H*COCq(N<NC»5^<NCO(NCOCS(NCS^!Nd<N^CO-HC0CS-H 

J 

! | 2§SsSgg§SfgSS§£e2SS5g| 

c -.coocjt'O^oiiocoQ^^ra'tfiocn^cs'tfcoco^raC^o 

§ ^S^S5<racqSt-S»ot'<N^iooocoo5eoioeooooeo^HeOTj<ioio 

S inin^^cocoto^cOTrco^^io^cOTjJeofN^dcoTjJ^^diN'^eocsi 


«. C «5 X! 

i O **-»-» 

I O 3 

: — <■ 4-> -— l 

I tt>T3 «J 3 

i, O 3 C »H 

C 3 U ^ 

i a) a) a> 

(•Hlnfl® 
I O cl 3X3 
: MiS WO 


T3 Q) 
bOTJ 

to 3 3 

in a> 

a) cx; c 

CW+J o 


Bi Q»P/ 
S -H O ! 

OC®l 
T3 «3 ^ «H I 
«J Q Cl 

co oa5 w: 


a) 

> 

bJD U 

a « 

» o —» to 

i u a) (U 
, ^-.+j > t- 
ivnoo^a 
i a) h>i 
1 ST3 U> O 
).rt C w> o +> - 


3 j* >, Jh O- 
3 X «J*3-M tn 

> a) a> c 02 o 


| 

St 

i® a < 

J,«H /-»-H l 

> .H tO 03 » 

)-h H3I 

3, CO 3 .Q ( 

X tO 3 1 

h a) a> x to c 

) Uh^V-P I 

4 to to to < 

3 T3 .X -M O *H t 
3—I.-I O S-M 
3 *H ai Oh( 

nacHD- K<S 


) ^ coco 03 e* cocococ 


^totot-CQojo^csco^to^t'og^ 

cse^csMc^sNcoeocoeococococococo 

i'lO CO^tO^OO Ci 1—1 <M 00^ 

qcqSKcqcococococoeowco^^^-^ 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 


261 


items which work well for one sex tend, in general, to work well for the 
other. The correlation between the D. P. rank orders for the men and those 
for the women is .84. This is sufficient justification for averaging the D. P.’s 
of the two groups to obtain an over-all “order of goodness” for each item. 
Since the differences between men and women, in the present context, are 
probably as great as the differences between any two groups of the same sex 
in the present sample, it is highly probable that a correlation between the 

D. P. rankings of any two such groups would be in the neighborhood of .84. 
There appear to be no general or systematic differences between the items 
which work better for men and those which work better for women. 

Mean scores for the men’s groups are somewhat higher on the average 
than mean scores for the women’s groups. This phenomenon would seem 
to be due primarily to the three male groups discussed above whose scores 
are particularly high. If men and women of the same socioeconomic class are 
compared, the means are not significantly different. Moreover, items which 
appeal most strongly to the men are much the same as those which appeal 
most strongly to the women, the rank-order correlation between the means 
for men and those for women being .95. 

b. Correlational Analysis. As a part of an independent investigation, the 

E, PEC, and F scales (from Forms 40 and 45) were administered to 900 
students in an Elementary Psychology Class at the University of California. 
It was decided not to include the data from this new college group among 
the general results of the present study because the total sample of subjects 
was already weighted too heavily on the side of young and relatively well- 
educated people. However, the 517 women from this psychology class con- 
stitute the only group in whose case the scales were subjected to an item-by- 
item correlational analysis. 4 The results of this analysis will be summarized 
here. 

Each item of the F scale was correlated with every other item. The average 
of the 435 coefficients was .13, the range —.05 to .44. 5 In addition, each item 
was correlated with the remainder of the scale, the mean r here being .33, 
the range .15 to .52. In the case of the E scale the mean interitem r was .42, 
and the mean item-total score r, .59. Whereas the E scale has about the same 
degree of unidimensionality as do acceptable intelligence tests (in the case of 
the 1937 Stanford-Binet Revision the average interitem r is about .38, the 
average item-total score r , .61), the F scale rates considerably lower in this 
regard. Despite the scale’s relative lack of surface homogeneity, however, 
we are justified in speaking of an F pattern or syndrome, for the items do 
“hang together” in the sense that each is significantly correlated with the 

4 This analysis was made possible by a Grant-in-aid from the Social Science Research 
Council. 

5 Fisher’s Z r was used in computing the average r. 



262 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


scale as a whole. It will be recalled in this connection that in constructing 
the F scale two purposes were held in mind: (a) to seek over a wide area for 
diverse responses that belonged to a single syndrome, and (b) to construct 
an instrument which would yield a reliable prediction of scores on E. It is 
clear that the first purpose has been in large part realized, although the search 
for additional items that would help characterize the F syndrome could be 
continued with profit. The fact that the individual F items correlate .25 on 
the average with the total E scale augurs well for the fulfillment of the 
second purpose— a matter to which we shall turn in a moment. 

Proof that the variables or groups of items used in thinking about the F 
scale are not clusters in the statistical sense, is contained in the data from the 
present group of 517 women. Although the items within each of the Form 
45 F-clusters tend to intercorrelate (.11 to .24), the items in any one cluster 
correlate with one another no better than they do with numerous items from 
other clusters. We are justified in using these clusters, therefore, only as 
a priori aids to discussion. 

D. CORRELATIONS OF THE F SCALE WITH E AND 

WITH PEC 

Correlations of F with the E and PEC scales, based on the three question- 
naire forms and derived from all the groups used in the study, are shown in 
Table 10 (VII). The major result expressed in this table is that the correla- 
tion between E and F has increased with the successive revisions of the scale 
until it has reached a point (about .75 on the average in Forms 40, 45) where 
scores on the former can be predicted with fair accuracy from scores on the 
latter. 

The correlation between F and E varies rather widely from one group to 
another, a matter that seems to depend mainly upon the reliability of the 
scales themselves. 6 Thus, in the San Quentin group, where the reliability of 
F is .87 and that of E only .65, the correlation between the two scales is at 
the lowest, .59; while in the case of the Working-Class Women, where the 
reliability of F climbs to .97, 7 the correlation is at its maximum, .87. It is 
obvious, therefore, that if the reliabilities of the two scales were increased 
(which can be done by increasing the number of items within each) the 

6 The correlation between E and F does not seem to depend upon whether the two scales 
are administered at different times, or at the same time with items from the one scale in- 
terspersed among those of the other. The correlation obtained in the case of the Universiy 
of Oregon Student Women, who were given Form 60 in two parts, is not only similar to 
that obtained, with the use of the regular Form 60, in the case of the University of 
Oregon and University of California Student Women, but it is virtually the same as 
the mean EE correlation for all groups of subjects. 

7 The reliability of the “A” half of the E scale, which was given as a part of Form 40 
to that group, was not calculated. 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 


263 


TABLE 10 (VII) 


CORRELATIONS OF THE F SCALE WITH THE A-S, E, 

AND PEC 

SCALES IN 

THE 

SEVERAL FORMS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE 


N 

F. A-S 

F.E 

F. PEC 

Groups taking Form 78: 

Public Speaking Class Women 

Public Speaking Class Men 

Extension Class Women 

Professional Women 

140 

52 

40 

63 

.55 

.52 

.49 

.57 

.58 
.56 
.74 
. 73 

.52 

.45 

.54 

.65 

Over- all*: Form 78 

295 

.53 

. 65 

.54 

Groups taking Form 60: 





Univ. of Oregon Student Women 

47 


.72 

. 29 

Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of 





California Student Women 

54 


. 78 

.49 

Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of 





California Student Men 

57 


. 58 

.43 

Oregon Service Club Men 

68 


. 69 

.29 

Oregon Service Club Men b 

60 



. 22 

Over- all: Form 60 

286 


.69 

.34 

Groups taking Form 45: 





Testing Class Women 

59 


. 79 

.54 

San Quentin Men Prisoners 

110 


.59 

.23 

Psychiatric Clinic Women 

71 


.36 

.62° 

Psychiatric Clinic Men 

50 


.76 

.57° 

Working-Class Men and Women 

50 


.85 

. 70 

Employment Service Men Veterans 

51 


. 67 

*. 62^ 

Maritime School Men 

179 


.56 

. 39 d 

Over- all: Form 45 

570 


.73 

.52 

Groups taking Form 40 e : 





George Washington Univ. Women 

132 


. 69 

.53 

California Service Club Men 

63 


.80 

. 59 

Middle-Class Men 

69 


.81 

.71 

Working-Class Men 

61 


.76 

.60 

Middle-Class Women 

154 


.83 

.70 

Working-Class Women 

53 


.87 

.72 

Los Angeles Men 

117 


.82 

.58 

Los Angeles Women 

130 


.75 

.61 

Employment Service Men Veterans 

55 


.72 

.62 

Maritime School Men 

165 


. 62 

.39 

Over- all: Form 40 

999 


. 77 

. 61 

Over- all: All Forms 

2150 

.53 

.73 

.52 


a In obtaining the over-all group means, the individual group means were not 
weighted by N. 

b This group of Oregon Service Club Men received a short questionnaire form 
containing only the F scale and half of the PEC scale. 

c Por the correlations of F with PEC in the Psychiatric Clinic groups, the number 
of women was 45, the number of men 29. due to a substitution of forms. 

^These F-PEC correlations are based on both Forms 40 and 45. Since it was con- 
sidered highly unlikely that the presence or absence of 5 E items would affect 
the correlation of F and PEC, the two forms are taken together in order to have 
the advantage of the larger N’ s. The total N is 106 for the Employment Service 
Men Veterans, 343 for the Maritime School Men, 

e In Form 40, it will be recalled, only the "A" half of the 10-itera E scale 
was used. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


264 

correlation between E and F would be very high indeed. 8 This is not to say, 
however, that E and F for all practical purposes measure the same thing. A 
correlation of .775 means that about two-thirds of the subjects who score in 
the high quartile on the one scale, score in the high quartile on the other, 
and that there are practically no reversals, i.e., cases in which a subject is 
high on one scale but low on the other. If one wished to use the F scale alone 
in order to single out subjects who were practically certain to be highly 
ethnocentric, i.e., in the high quartile on the present E scale, it would be 
necessary for him to limit himself to those scoring at the very highest extreme 
on F, perhaps the top 10 per cent. As pointed out earlier, there are reasons 
why some discrepancy between the two scales should be expected. Surely 
there are some individuals who have the kind of susceptibility to fascist 
propaganda with which the F scale is concerned but who for one reason or 
another tend to inhibit expressions of hostility against minority groups (sub- 
jects high on F but low on E). And we have good reason to believe that there 
are other people who rather freely repeat the cliches of ethnocentrism— 
perhaps in accordance with the climate of opinion in which they are living— 
without this being expressive of deep-lying trends in their personalities (sub- 
jects high on E but low on F). Such “exceptions” will be taken up in more 
detail later. 

It is to be noted that the correlation between F and E is slightly higher on 
the average in the case of groups taking Form 40 than for groups taking 
Form 45. This means that F correlates slightly better with the A half of the 
E scale than with the total E scale, and that the correlation must be still lower 
in the case of the B half of the scale. In several groups taking Form 45 the 
correlations of E A and of E B with F were calculated, in addition to the cor- 
relation of total E with F. The results appear in Table 11 (VII). In each 


TABLE 11 (VII) 

CORRELATIONS OF THE F SCALE ffITH EACH HALF AND WITH 
THE WHOLE OF THE E SCALE 


Group 

2L 

E A .P 

Correlations 

Eg.P 

e A+B- P 

San Quentin Men Prisoners 

110 

.56 

.45 

.59 

Employment Service Men Veterans 

51 

.66 

.61 

.67 

Maritime School Men 

179 

. 61 

.40 

.56 

Testing Class Women 

59 

.77 

.66 

.79 

Mean 


. 65 

.53 

.65 


8 The correlation coefficient which, theoretically, would result if two scales were per- 
fectly reliable, i.e., if the average obtained r were corrected for attenuation, is about .9. 
This indicates a striking correspondence, though not a complete identity, of what is meas- 
ured by the two scales. 







MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 265 

group E a -F is notably higher than E B -F, and about the same as E a +b-F. It 
may be recalled that the A half of the scale refers to highly generalized 
ethnocentrism and contains no A-S items, while the B half is made up of four 
A-S items and one Negro item. It happened that this Negro item was a 
relatively poor one in the statistical sense (rank order, 5 for men, 10 for 
women), but this is not enough to account for the superiority of the E A .F 
correlations. It seems, rather, that the F syndrome is actually more closely 
related to general ethnocentrism than to anti-Semitism. This is in keeping 
with the finding, reported earlier, that in Form 78 the F scale correlated 
more highly with the E scale than with the A-S scale. Although anti-Semitism 
is still to be understood primarily as an aspect of general ethnocentrism, there 
can be no doubt but that it has some special features of its own. Some of 
these features are described in Chapter XVI. 

The F syndrome bears only a moderately close relation to politico- 
economic conservatism, the average correlation for Forms 45 and 40 being 
.57. Our interpretation is that high scores on PEC may proceed either from 
genuine conservatism or from pseudoconservatism, and that it is the latter 
which is most expressive of the personality trends which the F scale measures. 
This is in keeping with the finding that E, which is closely related to F, also 
shows only moderate correlation with PEC. The E.PEC correlation is about 
the same as the F.PEC correlation. It would appear that general ethnocen- 
trism, as measured by the present scales, is mainly an expression of those 
personality structures which the F scale measures; politico-economic con- 
servatism, while it may have this same source, may be more dependent than 
E upon factors in the individual’s contemporary situation. 

E. DIFFERENCES IN MEAN F-SCALE SCORE AMONG 
VARIOUS GROUPS 

We may turn now to a consideration of the mean F-scale scores of different 
groups. These means have been set forth in Table 12 (VII). It is well to 
recall here what was stated at the beginning (Chapter I, C), that since no 
steps were taken to insure that each group studied was actually representa- 
tive of a larger section of the population, we are in no position to generalize 
from the present results on mean scores, however suggestive they might be. 
(A large-scale community study would be necessary in order to produce a 
sound estimate of the relative amounts of fascist potential in different sec- 
tions of the general population. The F scale, we believe, is worthy to be 
used in such a study, though it would have to be modified somewhat in order 
to be suitable for groups with little education.) It seems well to recall, too, 
that the group with which a subject filled out the questionnaire does not 
necessarily represent a group membership that is significant for the present 
study. The differences with which we are here concerned are not very large, 



z66 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


\ TABLE 12 (VII) 

MEAN F- SCALE SCORES OF GROUPS 
TAKING THE SEVERAL FORMS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE 


Group 

N 

Mean 

S. D. 

Form 78: 




Public Speaking Class Women 

140 

3.94 

.71 

Public Speaking Class Men 

52 

3.72 

.57 

Extension Class Women 

40 

3.75 

.70 

Professional Women 

63 

3.43 

.86 

Over- all mean. Form 78 

295 

3.71 

.71 

Form 60: 




Univ. of Oregon Student Women 

Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of California 

47 

3.32 

.86 

Student Women 

54 

3. 39 

.96 

Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of California 




Student Men 

57 

3.82 

.93 

Oregon Service Club Men 

68 

3. 74 

.81 

Oregon Service Club Men (A Form only) 

60 

3. 25 

.71 

Over- all mean, Form 60 

286 

3.50 

.85 

Form 45: 




Testing Class Women 

59 

3. 62 

.99 

San Quentin Men Prisoners 

110 

4. 73 

.86 

Psychiatric Clinic Women 

71 

3. 69 

1. 30 

Psychiatric Clinic Men 

50 

3.82 

1.01 

Over- all mean, Form 45 

290 

3.96 

1,04 

Form 40: 




George Washington Univ. Women 

132 

3.51 

.90 

California Service Club Men 

63 

4.08 

1.03 

Middle-Class Women 

154 

3. 62 

1. 26 

Middle-Class Men 

69 

3.69 

1. 22 

Working-Class Women 

53 

3.86 

1.67 

Working-Class Men 

61 

4. 19 

1. 18 

Los Angeles Women 

130 

3.49 

1. 13 

Los Angeles Men 

117 

3. 68 

1. 17 

Over-all mean, Form 40 

779 

3. 76 

1. 20 

Forms 40 and 45: 




Employment Service Men Veterans 

106 

3. 74 

1.04 

Maritime School Men 

343 

4.06 

.77 

Over- all mean. Forms 40 and 45 

449 

3.90 

.90 


Over-all mean. Pour Forms (78, 60, 45, 40): 2099 


3.78 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 267 

while the variability within each group is marked. Only rarely is the differ- 
ence between two groups greater than one S. D. In our view, we should find 
large group differences in mean F score only when membership in a group 
has some psychological significance, and this does not seem to be true of 
most of the present groups. (A study of the F-scale score in relation to group 
membership factors such as those covered by page 1 of the questionnaire 
[income, religion, etc.] would probably be rewarding. In view of the high 
correlation between F and E we should expect results generally similar to 
those found in the case of the latter scale, but discrepancies would be par- 
ticularly interesting.) Nevertheless, some important sociological and psycho- 
logical differences among the present groups are known to exist— indeed some 
of these groups have been described as “key” groups— and, if the F scale is 
valid, we should expect differences in mean score that are intelligible in the 
light of our general theory. 

Of all the fourteen groups taking Form 40-45, the San Quentin Inmates 
obtained the highest mean score, 4.73. This mean is significantly different 
(C. R. = 3.2) from that of the next highest scoring group, the Working- 
Class Men, whose mean is 4.19. Between the San Quentin group and the low- 
est scoring group of men (Los Angeles Men, M = 3.68) the difference is 
very marked (C. R. = 7.8). In view of all that has been written concerning 
the close affinity of criminality and fascism, these results should not be sur- 
prising. Since the findings on the “key” San Quentin group are analyzed in 
detail in Chapter XXI, further discussion here is unnecessary. 

Service Club Men and Working-Class Men do not differ significantly in 
mean F score. This will come as a surprise only to those who have become 
accustomed to explaining all important differences in social attitudes on the 
basis of socioeconomic group membership, and who look to the working 
man as the main carrier of liberal ideas. It is true, of course, as a matter of 
economic and social fact, that the crucial role in the struggle against increas- 
ing concentration of economic power will have to be played by the working 
people, acting in accordance with their self-interest, but it is foolhardy to 
underestimate the susceptibility to fascist propaganda within these masses 
themselves. For our part, we see no reason to suppose that the authoritarian 
structures with which we are concerned would be any less well developed 
in the working class than in other segments of the population. If it be argued 
that our sample of working-class men might be an unusually reactionary 
one, the answer is that approximately half of this sample come either from 
the militantly “liberal” United Electrical Workers Union (C.I.O.) or from 
classes at the California Labor School, and that there is no reason to suppose 
that men from the United Seaman’s Service or new members of the I.L.W.U. 
—who constitute the remainder of the sample— are more conservative than 
working men generally. For that matter, the extremely high scoring San 
Quentin Inmates come in very large part from the working class, and there 



268 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


is good reason to suppose that their general outlook depends upon their 
background as well as upon the circumstance of their being in prison. 

It appears that differences among the present groups of men depend more 
upon the factor of contact with liberal organizations and liberal thought 
than upon socioeconomic group membership. This is the basis on which we 
would explain the relatively low means of the Middle-Class Men (3.69) and 
the Los Angeles Men (3.68), both of which are significantly different (be- 
yond the 5 per cent level) from that of the Service Club Men (4.08). The 
Middle-Class Men and the Service Club Men are quite similar with respect 
to economic and occupational status; the difference between them that is 
reflected in their F-scale mean lies, most probably, in whatever it is that dis- 
poses the former to appear at a meeting of the P.T.A. or the layman’s league 
of a Presbyterian Church or at evening classes at the California Labor School, 
and the latter at a Service Club luncheon. This, in our opinion, is primarily 
a psychological matter; the difference lies in the degree of something which 
may be labeled, for the moment, a disposition toward liberalism or progres- 
sivism or humanitarianism. The Los Angeles Men, it will be recalled, were 
recruited primarily from the University and the movie communities. Thus, 
though their socioeconomic status was certainly no lower than that of the 
Service Club Men in the San Francisco area, the setting in which they were 
found was one of greater liberalism. The Maritime School Group, made up 
predominantly of men with working-class and lower middle-class ante- 
cedents who are out to raise their status, belongs on the basis of its mean 
(4.06) with the Service Club Men and the Working-Class Men, while the 
Psychiatric Clinic Men (M = 3.82) and the Employment Service Veterans 
(M = 3.74), who probably are more heterogeneous with respect to either 
class status or liberal affiliations, have intermediate positions in the rank order 
of means. 

It has been pointed out that the fact of the men in our total sample having 
a higher mean than the women is due primarily to the presence in the male 
sample of the outstandingly high scoring groups that have just been con- 
sidered. The present data show that where social group membership is con- 
stant, the means for men are not significantly different from those of women. 
Thus, in the case of the Working-Class Women and the Working-Class Men, 
the C. R. is only 1.22, while the differences between men and women in the 
Psychiatric Clinic, the Los Angeles and the Middle-Class groups are prac- 
tically negligible. It is to be noted, however, that in each case the men are 
slightly higher, and that in a larger sample the difference might become 
significant. 

Among the women’s groups, the only difference that approaches signifi- 
cance is that existing between the Working-Class Women (M = 3.86), on 
the one hand, and the George Washington University Women (M = 3.51) 
and Los Angeles Women (M = 3.49) on the other. If a true difference exists, 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 269 

the explanation would seem to be the same as that advanced in the case of 
some of the men’s groups: that the latter groups of women have been in 
closer touch with liberal trends. 

It is of some interest to consider group differences in mean F score in rela- 
tion to the mean E score of these same groups. In general, groups that score 
highest on F tend to score highest on E also. The most notable discrepancies 
occur in the cases of the George Washington Women, who are relatively 
much higher on E (M = 4.04) than on F (M — 3.51), and the Working- 
Class Men, who are slightly higher on F (M — 4.19) than on E (M = 3.92). 
It seems probable that in the case of this group of women, we have to deal 
with a regional difference: many observers have noted that there is more 
prejudice in the East than in the West. It may be, therefore, that although 
these college women were relatively liberal as a group, they were led by 
the prevailing climate of opinion to go fairly high on E. This is in keeping 
with the fact that the correlation between F and E in this group was one of 
the lowest obtained. 

The group of Working-Class Men is the only one in which the mean E 
score is lower than the mean F score. This is probably attributable to the 
success of indoctrination in antidiscrimination which occurs in the “liberal” 
unions to which a majority of these subjects belong. Apparently, however, 
this indoctrination did not go so far as to modify those attitudes centering 
around authoritarianism, which are more pronounced in this group than in 
most others. One might say that if this indoctrination were dispensed with, 
or if propaganda having an opposite direction were substituted for it, then 
the results from this group would fall into line with all the others. 

It has often been suggested that working-class people are relatively unin- 
hibited in expressing the prejudice that they have and that this does not go 
very deep, while middle-class people are more restrained in giving vent to 
their— often deeper— prejudice. That nothing to support this formulation is 
to be found in the present data may be due most largely to the fact that our 
ethnocentric statements were for the most part fairly restrained, i.e., formu- 
lated in such a way that a pseudodemocratic person could agree with them 
and still maintain the illusion that he was not prejudiced. 

F. VALIDATION BY CASE STUDIES: THE F-SCALE 
RESPONSES OF MACK AND LARRY 

The responses of Mack and Larry on the F scale may now be compared 
with their remarks in the interview. In Table 1 3 (VII) are shown the scores 
of Mack and Larry, the group mean, and the D. P. for each of the 3 8 items 
in the F scale (Form 78), the items having been grouped according to the 
scheme of F-scale variables. 

The mean F-scale scores of the two men seem to be in keeping with the 



270 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE 13 (VII) 

RESPONSES OF MACK AND LARRY ON THE F SCALE (FORM 78) 



Item 

Mack 

Larry 

Group 

Me an&' 

(N = 295) 

Group 
D.P. a 

Convent 

12. 

ional ism 
(Modern church) 

5 

7 

4.67 

0. 19 

19. 

(One should avoid) 

2 

1 

3.63 

0.76 

38. 

(Emphasis in the colleges) 

5 

2 

3.91 

1. 20 

55. 

(Leisure) 

7 

6 

5. 20 

2. 11 

58. 

(What a man does) 

6 

1 

3. 48 

1. 70 

60. 

(Important values) 

5 

5 

4. 17 

1. 60 


Cluster mean 

5.00 

3. 66 

4. 18 

1. 26 


Author itarian Submission 


20. 

(Progressive education) 

3 

1 

3. 28 

1. 07 

23. 

(Undying love) 

6 

7 

3. 62 

2. 61 

32. 

(Essential for learning) 

7 

6 

3. 61 

1. 67 

39. 

(Supernatural force) 

1 

1 

3. 97 

2. 54 

43. 

(Sciences like chemistry) 

1 

2 

4. 35 

2. 79 

50. 

(Obedience and respect) 

6 

2 

3.72 

3. 09 

74. 

(Tireless leaders) 

2 

1 

5.00 

1. 66 

77. 

(No sane, normal person) 

6 

5 

4. 12 

2. 12 


Cluster mean 

4.00 

3. 13 

3. 96 

2. 19 


Authoritarian Aggression 
6. (Women restricted) 
23. (Undying love) 

31. (Homosexuals) 

47. (Honor) 

75. (Sex crimes) 


2 

1 

2. 93 

1. 75 

6 

7 

3. 62 

2. 61 

6 

6 

3. 22 

2. 16 

5 

2 

3. 00 

2. 09 

6 

1 

3. 26 

2. 81 


Cluster mean 


5.00 3.40 3.21 2.28 


Anti- 

intraception 


28. 

(Novels or i 

stories) 

38. 

(Bnphasis in colleges) 

53. 

(Things too 

intimate) 

55. 

(Leisure) 


58. 

(What a man 

does) 

66. 

(Books and movies) 


5 

1 

3.02 

1. 29 

5 

2 

3.91 

1.20 

3 

5 

4. 82 

1.99 

7 

6 

5. 20 

2. 11 

6 

1 

3.48 

1.70 

6 

2 

4. 10 

2.48 


Cluster mean 5.33 2.83 4.09 1.80 


Superstition 

2. (Astrology) 

10. (Pearl Harbor Day) 

39. (Supernatural force) 

43. (Sciences like chemistry) 
65. (World catastrophe) 

Cluster mean 


5 

6 

2. 60 

1.74 

1 

1 

2. 22 

2. 20 

1 

1 

3.97 

2.54 

1 

2 

4. 35 

2. 79 

1 

1 

2. 58 

1.55 

1.80 

2. 20 

3. 78 

1. 70 


MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 


271 


TABLE 13 (VII) (CONT’D) 



Item 

Mack 

Larry 

Group 

Mean a 

(N = 295) 

Group 
D.P. a 

Power 

9. 

and "Toughness" 

(Red-blooded life) 

1 

2 

3.99 

2.04 

35. 

(Law in own hands) 

1 

1 

2. 50 

1.42 

47. 

(Honor) 

5 

2 

3.00 

2.09 

70. 

(Plots) 

7 

2 

3. 27 

1. 65 

74. 

(Tireless leaders) 

2 

1 

5. 00 

1. 66 


Cluster mean 

3. 20 

1. 60 

3.55 

1. 77 

Destructiveness and Cynicism 

3. (Force to restore) 

3 

5 

3.04 

1.98 

9. 

(Return to fundamentals) 

1 

2 

3.99 

2.04 

14. 

(Rats. . .germs) 

6 

5 

4. 44 

1. 60 

17. 

(Familiarity) 

3 

1 

3.33 

1. 86 

24. 

(Things unstable) 

5 

5 

5.01 

0. 79 

30. 

(Reports of atrocities) 

6 

5 

4. 20 

0. 43 

35. 

(Law in own hands) 

1 

1 

2. 50 

1. 42 

42. 

(For one reason) 

1 

1 

2.06 

1.05 

56. 

(Crime wave) 

5 

5 

4. 60 

1. 16 

59. 

(Always war) 

7 

1 

4. 26 

2. 59 

67. 

(Eye to profit) 

7 

3 

3. 71 

2. 21 


Cluster mean 

4.09 

3.09 

3.74 

1.56 

Project ivity 

46. (Sex orgies) 

5 

2 

3. 64 

2.11 

56. 

(Crime wave) 

5 

5 

4. 60 

1. 16 

65. 

(World catastrophe) 

1 

1 

2. 58 

1.55 

70. 

(Plots) 

7 

2 

3. 27 

1. 65 

73. 

(Infection and disease) 

5 

1 

4.79 

2.02 


Cluster mearj 

4. 60 

2. 20 

3. 78 

1. 70 

Se* 

31. 

(Homosexuality) 

6 

6 

3. 22 

2. 16 

42. 

(For one reason) 

1 

1 

2.06 

1.05 

46. 

(Sex orgies) 

5 

2 

3. 64 

2. 11 

75. 

(Sex crimes) 

6 

1 

3. 26 

2.81 


Cluster mean 

4. 50 

2. 50 

3.05 

2.03 

Over 

-all mean b 

4.31 

2.95 

3.71 

1.80 


a The group means and D.P.’s are based on all four groups taking Form 78 
(see Table 3 (VII), note a ) 

b Over- all means are based on the sum of the 38 individual items, with no 
overlap. 


2 7 2 THE authoritarian personality 

earlier observation that they do not represent the most extreme cases found 
in the study. Mack’s mean score, 4.31, is just inside the high quartile for the 
group of Public Speaking Men in which he was tested; it is only slightly 
above the average score of the Working-Class Men (4.19) and well below 
that of the San Quentin Group (4.73). Larry’s mean score, 2.95, is barely 
low enough to be included in the low quartile for the Public Speaking Men. 
It is, however, well below any of the group means obtained in the study. 

Turning to the 9 variables within the scale, it may be noted that on 7 of 
them Mack s mean score is above the group mean. He deviates from the 
group most markedly in the case of Authoritarian Aggression. This is con- 
sistent with what was set down as one of the outstanding features of his 
interview, that is, his tendency to blame and to condemn on moral grounds 
a wide variety of individuals, groups, and agencies— F.D.R., the New Deal, 
the O.W.I., the Civil Service, in addition to various ethnic minorities. That 
homosexuals, sex criminals, those who insult “our honor,” and anyone who 
does not have undying love for his parents should be regarded in the same 
way is not surprising. It is to be noted, however, that he does not agree that 
women should be restricted in certain ways.” This inconsistency may be 
interpreted in the light of the following quotation from the clinical section 
of his interview: 9 

I hope to get married to the girl I’m going with now. She is an awfully nice com- 
panion. Most girls are interested only in a good time and want fellows with lots 
of money to spend. I didn’t have the money for giving them a swell time. The 
girl 1 m m love with now lived nine miles from me. She attended a rival high school. 
I dated her once in high school. When I got back from the army, I worked in a 

lumber mill. This girl had graduated from and started teaching. Her uncle 

is the vice-president of the bank. I talked to him about buying an automobile that 
she was interested in. I looked it over for her, since I knew something about cars, 
and told her it was in good condition. I got started going with her that way. I found 
out that she wasn’t interested in money, but was interested in me in spite of my 
discharge from the army, my poor health, and prospects. She’s just very good 
-not beautiful, but a tremendously nice personality. She is French with some Irish 
in her. She has a nice figure and is very wholesome. When we get married depends 
on circumstances. It s quite a responsibility. She wants to get married now; she is 

teaching in -. I’m under the GI Bill. If I get assurance of four years in college, 

might get married this spring. We’re well suited; I know she’s interested in me, 
because I have so little to offer. We’re both at the proper age. I intend to work part 
time. I don’t like her teaching; I like to support my wife. I’ve always had that idea. 
But maybe under the circumstances, that won’t be fully possible. She is a good 
cook and that is an asset, what with my stomach condition. When I tell her that 
you approve of our marriage, she will be pleased, but, of course, I’m always a man 
to make my own decisions.” 

It seems that Mack does believe that “a woman’s place is in the home,” but 

9 Throughout the book, the interviewer’s report of the interview is given in small type. 
Quotation marks within this material indicate a verbatim record of the subject’s state- 
ments. 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 273 

was prevented by the logic of his situation at the time from saying so in his 
questionnaire. 

Sex, Anti-intraception, Conventionalism, and Projectivity, in the order 
named, are the other variables on which Mack is well above the group mean. 
Sex was not mentioned in the interview protocol given in Chapter II. The 
following quotation from the clinical part of Mack’s interview may, how- 
ever, throw some light on his responses to the Sex items in the scale: 

(Where did you get your sex instruction? ) “I never had any from my parents, 
though I did get some suggestions from my aunt; no real instruction. What I know 
I have picked up from reading. I’ve listened to men talk, but accepted little of it; 

I weighed it in the light of what I have read.” 

(What was your first sex experience?) “It was in i940-’4i, the aftermath of a 
New Year’s party in Washington. There was liquor. I was always a backward boy.” 

According to well-supported theory, it is precisely the kind of sexual inhi- 
bition and “backwardness” described here, and further expressed in the 
extreme conventionalism of the passage about plans for marriage, that lies 
behind the moralistic and punitive attitude toward the supposed sexuality 
of other people which is the main theme of the Sex items in the scale. The 
inconsistency seen in Mack’s disagreement with the statement that “men are 
interested in women for only one reason” might be explained in the same 
way as was his response to Item 6 (Women restricted): agreement would 
contradict too sharply the facts of his present situation. It is to be noted, how- 
ever, that the item (For one reason) has a very low group mean and a low 
D. p . 

Mack’s interview could serve well as a model of Anti-intraception. His 
emphasis upon practicality, efficiency, and diligence as ends in themselves, 
his tendency to ignore social and psychological determinants of human 
characteristics and human events, his failure to take into account possible 
inner sources of his opinions, the discrepancies between his expressed values 
and what appear to be his real motives, were outstanding features of his 
interview. The several Anti-intraception items of the F scale seem to have 
afforded him an excellent opportunity to express these same tendencies. An 
interesting discrepancy occurs in the case of Item 53 (Things too intimate), 
where his score of 3 is well below the group mean. This response is not very 
consistent with the pattern of values that he sets forth in his interview, but 
it seems quite consistent with what he does in the interview: as the above 
passage in which he discusses his approaching marriage well illustrates, he is 
able within the space of an hour to come to a rather free discussion of certain 
intimate matters with a stranger. True, his generally deferential behavior in 
the interview is probably an aspect of his Authoritarian Submission, but, 
more than this, there is a strong indication that however much Mack may 
assert his independence he is really a rather lonesome and troubled young 
man who would like to talk with someone who understood him. 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


274 

One familiar with Mack’s interview might have expected him to go higher 
on Conventionalism. One of his major reasons for rejecting so many groups 
is that they violate conventional values, and his positive evaluations of in- 
groups are in the same terms— honesty, charity, thrift, diligence, etc. His 
ideas about work and about love and marriage seem to be utterly conven- 
tional. True, his mean score for Conventionalism is as high as it is for any 
other variable save Anti-intraception, and one reason why he does not stand 
out more sharply from the group is that the group mean itself is high-higher 
than for any of the other variables. Furthermore, the Conventionalism items, 
as a group, were not very discriminating, the mean D. P., 1.26, being the 
lowest of those obtained for the several variables. Item 19 (One should 
avoid), on which Mack’s score is below the group mean, does not discrim- 
inate between the high and low quartiles; that he should not agree with it 
seems consistent with his expressed value for independence. It is interesting 
that despite his rejection of religion in the interview, he refuses to criticize 
the modern church when invited to do so by Item 12. His conventionalism 
will not allow him to attack so well-established an institution. 

From Mack s interview (Chapter II) we inferred that one reason he 
accuses various groups and agencies of wishing to establish a closely cohesive 
and selfishly exploitive ingroup was that he wished to do the same thing 
himself; unable to justify such antisocial wishes, he sees them as existing not 
in himself but in the world around him. This is projectivity in a rather 
extreme form, and if Mack had not gone above the group mean on this vari- 
able, in his scale responses, we should have had to conclude that something 
was radically wrong with the scale. His score of 7 on Item 70 (Plot) seems 
perfectly in keeping with what he had to say about politics in his interview. 
His responses to Items 46 (Sex orgies) and 73 (Infection and disease) are 
consistent with the picture of sexual inhibition given above. That he is well 
below the group mean on Item 65 (World catastrophe) seems attributable 
to the value for hard-headed scientificness which he expressed both in his 
interview and in his response to items under the heading of Superstition. It 
is notable that his scientific “realism” does not insure that he keeps his feet 
on the ground when it comes to interpreting social events. (Indeed, it seems 
to have the opposite effect, and one might inquire if this is not generally 
true.) 

Mack stands only slightly above the group mean on Destructiveness and 
Cynicism. This is a reminder of the fact that his interview leaves the impres- 
sion of a relatively “mild case”; he makes no rabid statements, nor does he 
show any taste for violence. Attention to the individual items of the Destruc- 
tiveness and Cynicism group shows that it is those pertaining to open or all- 
out aggression on which he scores at or below the mean, while he goes well 
above the mean on items that have to do primarily with cynicism. It is 
interesting to recall, in this connection, his outstandingly high score on 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 275 

Authoritarian Aggression. One might say that Mack cannot express aggres- 
sion directly unless it is done in the name of some moral authority or unless 
it is against some group that has been rejected on moral grounds. 

It might be suggested that another way in which Mack handles aggression 
is by means of cynicism. There was certainly no want of cynicism in his 
interview— the bureaus grab power, the civil servants think only of them- 
selves, Roosevelt selfishly seeks a fourth term, etc.— and he obtains top scores 
on the items most expressive of this trend: 30 (Reports of atrocities), 59 
(Always war), 67 (Eye to profit). This is, of course, hypothesizing that 
Mack has unconscious aggressive tendencies which are projected onto human 
nature and the world. Something like a high-water mark in cynicism is 
reached by Mack when he agrees, rather emphatically, with both Item 30 
(Reports of atrocities are exaggerated) and Item 48 (Germans and Japs 
should be wiped out) of the E scale: in agreeing with the former he is saying 
that the Germans were not as bad as they were pictured; in agreeing with 
the latter he is saying that nevertheless we ought to wipe out as many of 
them as possible. 

On the strength of Mack’s interview, we should expect him to obtain one 
of his highest mean scores on Authoritarian Submission. Glorification of 
such ingroup authorities as General Marshall, the War Department, the big 
capitalists, and God as “strictly a man,” was one of the interview’s outstand- 
ing features. Yet his scale score on this variable (4.0) is at the group mean. 
Consideration of the items which pertain to this variable can effect some 
reconciliation of scale and interview, but it also reveals certain weaknesses 
in the Form 78 scale. The items on which Mack scores well above the mean 
—23 (Undying love), 32 (Essential for learning), 50 (Obedience and re- 
spect), and 77 (No sane, normal person)— are those which express Authori- 
tarian Submission in its purest form: three of them have to do with family 
loyalty and the third with authoritarian education. When it comes to the 
items which have to do with religion, however— 39 (Supernatural force) 
and 43 (Sciences like chemistry)— and in which ideas and feelings first ex- 
perienced, presumably, in relationships with parents are now represented on 
a cosmic plane, his value for the objective-scientific comes to the fore and 
his scores are as low as they could be. One might say that Mack’s submissive 
tendencies are insufficiently sublimated to permit their expression in abstract 
religious terms; the forces which are important for him are more tangible; 
they have concrete existence either in men or in physical objects. In this 
light, it is surprising that he does not agree with Item 74 (Tireless leaders). 
This item, be it noted, has a very high group mean and a relatively low 
Discriminatory Power. It seems likely that for some of the truly submissive 
subjects, like Mack, the item is too open, comes too close home, so that in 
responding they go contrary to their strongest feeling, while the great ma- 
jority of the subjects, for whom the item was not emotionally involving, 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


276 

responded in accordance with the element of objective truth in the statement. 
Rephrasing of this item in later forms seems to have improved it by minimiz- 
ing the rational aspect and by putting the emphasis more squarely on leader- 
ship. Another poor item, it seems, is 20 (Progressive education). Liberals 
and potential fascists alike, very probably, are attracted by the word “pro- 
gressive.” That Mack is no real supporter of progressive education is attested 
to by his enthusiastic endorsement of Item 32 (Essential for learning) which 
is about as clear a statement of educational reactionism as could be found. 

Mack is below the group mean on the rather unsatisfactory Power and 
“Toughness” cluster. All the items of this cluster have been discussed above. 
The correspondence between interview and scale lies in the fact that in 
neither place does he show any strong inclination to be a tough and aggres- 
sive fellow. It is in his admiration for power and in his willingness to submit 
to it, rather than in any wish to be an aggressive leader, that his potentiality 
for fascism lies. 

Enough has been said about Mack’s extraceptive outlook, as seen both in 
his interview and in the scale responses discussed above, so that his very low 
score on Superstition is no more than is to be expected. The surprising thing, 
perhaps, is that he should agree with Item 2 (Astrology), when the great 
majority of the subjects do not. His agreement here suggests that his relative 
lack of superstition is not based upon a genuine identification with science 
as a way of life, but rather upon his general need to appear hard-headed and 
realistic and unlikely to be “taken in.” 

In general, there is rather close correspondence between Mack’s interview 
and his scale responses. Discrepancies appear chiefly when the scale, which 
concentrates upon things thought to be generally significant, fails to catch 
something which is relatively specific and unique, and, more commonly, 
when the particular scale item is deficient and fails to discriminate between 
high and low scorers. There is reason to believe that the latter difficulty has 
been largely overcome in the revisions of the scale. 

Turning to a consideration of Larry’s case, it may be noted first, that he 
scores below the group mean on all the F scale variables save one, Authori- 
tarian Aggression. He deviates most widely from the mean, in the low direc- 
tion, on Power and Toughness,” Projectivity, and Anti-intraception; then 
come Superstition and Authoritarian Submission; and he comes close to the 
mean on Destructiveness and Cynicism, Sex, and Conventionalism. 

Less can be said about the relative lack of these tendencies in Larry than 
about their operation in Mack. Larry agrees with none of the statements in 
the Power and Toughness” cluster, and this accords with the interview’s 
picture of him as a rather soft and agreeable young man. He agrees with 
only one of the Projectivity statements, Item 56 (Crime wave), and even 
here his score is barely above the group mean on a statistically poor item. His 
lack of this tendency was commented upon in the discussion of his interview. 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 


277 


where his willingness to admit his— not too lofty— motives and his inclina- 
tion to find the origins of his own views were noteworthy. A low score on 
Anti-intraception is certainly to be expected from a man who gives consid- 
erable attention to his own feelings, makes a positive value of pleasure, says 
he likes to “philosophize,” and discusses psychological determinants of prej- 
udice— as Larry did in his interview. Inconsistencies appear in the case of 
Items 55 (Leisure) and 53 (Things too intimate), where he goes somewhat 
above the mean; the former may be taken as an expression of his conven- 
tionality, while the latter would appear to be connected with his special 
problem— “that disease” (tuberculosis) that he had. 

There was nothing in Larry’s interview to suggest that he was super- 
stitious and, hence, it is to be expected that he should obtain a low score on 
the Superstition variable. Why he should agree with the astrology item is a 
question. Perhaps it should not be surprising to find an element of mysticism 
in this weak and rather passive character. Authoritarian Submission was 
rather prominent in Larry’s interview. He made it clear that he has a great 
deal of respect for his family and that he has had little occasion to rebel 
against them either in deed or in thought. That he is still below the mean 
makes it clear that in order to be high on this variable something more than 
ordinary respect for proper authority is required: the submission must be 
exaggerated or overdone, and it must be generalized to include other objects 
besides family members. Two of the three items on which Larry goes above 
the mean— 23 (Undying love) and 77 (No sane, normal person)— refer spe- 
cifically to ingroup feelings in regard to the family; the third, 32 (Essen- 
tial for learning), gives him an opportunity to express his conventionality. 

Larry is below the group mean on Destructiveness and Cynicism, but the 
naive optimism and friendliness toward the world which he showed in his 
interview is enough to raise the question of why he is not still lower. One 
thing to note is that the items on which he goes up have, in general, high 
group means and low D. P.’s. It seems that these items approach close enough 
to being cliches so that most people agree with them, and Larry is enough 
of a conformist to go along. 

In connection with Larry’s score on Sex, which is .55 below the group 
mean, the following quotation from the clinical section of his interview is 
enlightening. 

(Sex?) “No great problem. I thought about girls all the time, as boys will, and I 
looked at them. I started out with them at about 15. 1 liked them a lot and associated 
with them at school and in the neighborhood. You know, you have the usual sexual 
desires, but you don’t let them bother you.” 

(Sex morals?) “I feel a girl should remain a virgin until 21 or 22 anyway. If she 
expects to marry soon after that, she should wait until after marriage, but if she is 
a career girl or doesn’t want to get married, then an affair with an unmarried man 
is OK if they keep it quiet and secluded so the moral standards of others are not 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


2 78 

lowered. She should pick out one fellow to have a sex relation with, not carry on 
with several.” 

(You?) “Not until after I came out of the hospital, when I was 23 or 24. Since 
then I’ve had several affairs, lasting a few weeks or a month. I won’t marry until 
I have more security. She almost has to be a virgin, though not necessarily. I lost 
respect for the women I slept with. I know that’s selfish, but I guess that’s the way 
most fellows are.” 

Although this is conventional enough— “the way most fellows are,” as Larry 
says— it does not bespeak the kind of inhibition which we conceive to lie 
behind high scores on the Sex items. Actually, Larry’s score on this variable 
would have been very low were it not for his score of 6 on Item 31 (Homo- 
sexuality). It is possible that he is not free of worry in this area— but this 
is a matter that had best be left until it is time to discuss the clinical material 
itself. 

Enough has been said about Larry’s conventionalism to make it appear 
reasonable that he should be close to the mean on this variable. A problem is 
presented by the fact that he is actually above the mean on Authoritarian 
Aggression. True, his score is still far below that of Mack, but Larry’s inter- 
view gave the impression of a young man who would hardly want to punish 
anybody, and it is a criticism of the scale that it fails to confirm this impres- 
sion. The two items on which his score goes up are 31 (Homosexuals), 
which was discussed above, and 23 (Undying love). This latter item, though 
it has an element of punishment in it, also expresses Authoritarian Submis- 
sion, and Larry’s response is probably to be explained on the basis of his 
family loyalty. The group means and D. P.’s of the Authoritarian Aggres- 
sion items are, relatively, quite satisfactory. It seems that in regard to the 
present variable, the F scale was not a fine enough instrument to give the true 
picture in Larry’s case. 

The differences between Larry and Afack seem to be reflected fairly well 
in their F-scale responses. Mack scores higher than Larry on all the variables 
save one, Superstition. Mack is more than 2 points higher on Anti-intracep- 
tion, Projectivity, and Sex, more than 1 point higher on Power and “Tough- 
ness,” Authoritarian Aggression, and Conventionalism, and 1.00 and .87 
higher, respectively, on Destructiveness and Cynicism, and Authoritarian 
Submission. It is particularly interesting that the variables which are most 
differentiating, that is, Anti-intraception, Projectivity, and Sex, are those 
which seem to be at the greatest distance from the overt content of fascist 
ideology. They are variables that seem to have their sources deep within the 
personality and to be relatively impervious to superficial changes in the 
external situation. It will remain for later chapters to show that as we go 
deeper into the person the differentiation between high and low scorers 
becomes more clear-cut and dependable. 



MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 


279 


G. CONCLUSION 

The attempt to construct a scale that would measure prejudice without 
appearing to have this aim and without mentioning the name of any minority 
group seems to have been fairly successful. The correlation of .75 between 
the E and the F scale means that scores on the former may be predicted 
with fair accuracy from scores on the latter. That we have achieved the 
second purpose underlying the F scale— to construct an instrument that 
would yield an estimate of fascist receptivity at the personality level— has 
still to be demonstrated. 

Numerous variables in areas not ordinarily covered by studies of political, 
economic, and social ideology have been attacked directly; and they have 
been found to form a syndrome and to correlate significantly with antidemo- 
cratic trends in areas covered by the A-S, E, and PEC scales. This means, at 
the least, that the conception of a potentially fascistic pattern can be con- 
siderably extended, and that the hypothesis of central personality disposi- 
tions which give rise to this pattern is lent considerable support. It remains 
to be shown conclusively, however, that the variables with which the F 
scale has been concerned are, in reality, variables of personality. If it is true 
that they are, then they will be exposed directly as we consider findings from 
procedures designed especially for the investigation of personality and in 
which the individual is allowed to express himself spontaneously. If our 
major hypothesis is correct, then the clinical investigations soon to be re- 
ported should not only substantiate the findings of the present chapter, but 
give a deeper understanding of the potentially fascistic pattern and of its 
development within the individual. 



CHAPTER VIII 


ETHNOCENTRISM IN RELATION TO 
INTELLIGENCE AND EDUCATION 

Daniel J. Levinson 


There are several reasons why one might expect intelligence and educa- 
tion to be related to ethnocentrism. One reason is primarily methodological: 
since all of the E-scale items (and most of the items in the E-F-PEC series) 
are negative, i.e., agreement represents a pro-ethnocentric stand, perhaps 
some of the less intelligent individuals make high scores not out of real con- 
viction but simply out of suggestibility and lack of discernment. In answer 
to this point, it may be noted that we were primarily interested in measur- 
ing both active receptivity as well as a more passive suggestibility to anti- 
democratic ideology. Nevertheless, we should expect suggestibility to be 
but one— and far from the most important one— of the many factors showing 
some association with high scores on the E scale. 

Various hypotheses and interpretations presented in other chapters have 
implied, directly or indirectly, that intelligence and ethnocentrism are nega- 
tively correlated, i.e., that the high scorers on E are somewhat less intelli- 
gent on the average than the low scorers. Thus, the analysis of the ideological 
as well as of the clinical material has suggested that ethnocentrism is related 
to stereotypy, rigidity, and concreteness in thinking (also see Rokeach (98)), 
to narrowness of the ego bounds, and to difficulty in grasping psychosocial 
explanations of social phenomena. Since these variables are at best only 
partial components of intelligence, and since they are only imperfectly 
(though significantly) related to ethnocentrism, we might expect a rela- 
tively low but consistent negative correlation between intelligence and 
ethnocentrism. 

The correlation may be brought closer to zero by the operation of another 
factor: it has often been observed that an individual may function in a highly 
complex, abstract, and flexible manner in one area of life (e.g. in his occupa- 
tion as a physical scientist, mechanic, or businessman), and in a completely 
contrasting— less intelligent— manner in his social outlook or in his family 
life. It is as if the basic intellectual capacity can express itself only in accord- 

280 



ETHNOCENTRISM IN RELATION TO INTELLIGENCE 28 1 

ance with certain emotional-motivational principles; it is free, indeed stim- 
ulated, to act along certain lines, impeded and distorted to varying degrees 
along other lines. Whatever the reasons, it is a matter of fact that many 
individuals are inconsistent in their actual intellectual performance, and may 
show certain “nonintelligent” (stereotyped, rigid) qualities in their social 
thinking despite having a relatively high intelligence as it is ordinarily meas- 
ured. Conversely, individuals of moderate or low “basic” intelligence may 
be able to function realistically and flexibly in their social thinking. To the 
extent that intelligence tests measure something more basic— unfortunately 
it is not entirely clear what specific psychological functions they do measure 
—their correlation with ethnocentrism may be lower than initially expected. 
If the correlation were very high, above .4-5, say, we should be inclined 
to suspect that the scales are inadequate; it does not seem likely, on theo- 
retical grounds, that intelligence per se plays so large a role in ideology. 

The relation between ethnocentrism and education is also likely to be sig- 
nificant but low. One of the main stated aims of our educational system is 
the teaching of democratic values as expressed in our Constitution and in 
other great documents. To the extent that we are succeeding in aims such as 
these, ethnocentrism and years of education ought to be negatively cor- 
related, that is, the more the education the less the ethnocentrism. 

The above hypotheses are consistent with the results of previous studies 
of prejudice and general liberalism-conservatism. 1 

On the average, “liberals” (with respect to ideology regarding group rela- 
tions, politics, religion, etc.) have been shown to be slightly more intelligent, 
to receive better grades in college, to read more and to have greater intel- 
lectual curiosity. While the differences are significant, there is of course 
much overlap between the two extreme groups. 

It was not feasible within the scope of the present research to administer 
intelligence tests to the groups taking the questionnaire. Fortunately, such 
tests had already been administered to some or all of the members of four 
groups: Maritime School Men, Employment Service Men, Psychiatric Clinic 
Men and Women, and San Quentin Men. No information was obtained in 
our questionnaire regarding years of education; this question was omitted 
partly because of the probable unreliability of the answers and partly because 
of the fear that it might make the less educated subjects defensive about the 
entire questionnaire. In some cases, e.g., the college students and the pro- 
fessionals, the amount of schooling was relatively constant for the entire, 
group. For two groups, the Psychiatric Clinic patients and the Maritime 
School, the years of schooling had been determined in a way that seemed fairly 
(though not entirely) reliable. 

The data on intelligence are presented in Tables 1-3 (VIII), on education 
in Tables 4 (VIII) and 5 (VIII). We may consider intelligence first. 

1 For reports and summaries see: Murphy, Murphy and Newcomb ( 85 ); Kerr (63). 



282 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


For all three groups in Tables 1-3 (VIII), namely the Maritime School Men, 
Employment Service Men, and Psychiatric Clinic Men and Women, the 
average IQ is significantly above the general population average (usually 
by about one sigma) ; indeed, even the lowest scorer is, except in the third 
group, above the population mean. This fact, namely the restriction in the 
“range of talent,” must be considered in evaluating the results. The correla- 
tions for the Maritime School Men, obtained with the AGCT (Army Gen- 
eral Classification Test), are very similar to those obtained with the Otis 
Higher Form A Intelligence Test on the Employment Service Veteran Men. 
The correlations of these tests with the Ethnocentrism scale, Forms 45 and 

TABLE 1 (VIII) 

CORRELATIONS OF THE E AND F SCALES WITH 
VARIOUS ABILITY TESTS (MARITIME SCHOOL MEN) 


Ability Test Test Properties Correlation with: b 



Mean a 

S.D. 

Range 

AGCT 

Ea 

E A+B 

_F 

AGCT 

126.7 

8.98 

102-153 

-.02 

-.20 

-.20 

Mechanical 

Comprehension 

126.5 

14.61 

66-166 

. 25 

-. 17 

.00 

-. 13 

Reading 

Comprehension 

92.5 

13. 04 

57-121 

.55 

-.08 

-.06 

-. 20 

Arithmetical 

Comprehension 

81. 2 

8. 88 

61-105 

.59 

-.06 

-. 16 

-. 16 


a The present means may be compared with the following population means: 

For the general population, the AGCT and Mechanical Comprehension Tests 
have means of 100. For the "high school graduate" population the Read- 
ing Comprehension and Arithmetical Comprehension Tests have means of 79 . 
On all but the last-named test, therefore, the present sample is con- 
siderably above average. 

^The number of cases (N) involved in the correlations are as follows: 

Of the 343 subjects in the total sample, 342 received all of the ability 
tests, with the exception of four individuals who omitted the Reading 
Comprehension Test. The correlations involving AGCT and F, then, are 
based on an N of 342. The E A Scale, contained in Form 40. has an N of 
168. while E A+B has an N of 178. 

40, range between —,02 and —.32, averaging above —.2. The correlations 
-of E with the Mechanical, Reading and Arithmetical Comprehension Tests 2 
(Table i (VIII)) are slightly lower, averaging about — .1. These correla- 
tions, taken together, are statistically significant, that is, dependably above 
zero, at the 5 per cent level. It may be noted also that there are no positive 
correlations. Table 3 (VIII) gives the mean (Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence 

2 The Bennett Mechanical Aptitude Test, the Iowa Silent Reading Test, the Stanford 
Adult Arithmetical Reasoning Test. 



ETHNOCENTRISM IN RELATION TO INTELLIGENCE 283 

TABLE 2 (VIII) 

CORRELATIONS OF THE E, F, AND PEC SCALES WITH 
THE OTIS HIGHER FORM A INTELLIGENCE TEST 
(EMPLOYMENT SERVICE VETERAN MEN) 


Otis 

Test Properties 

Range 

Correlation of Otis with: c 


Mean a 



Otis Raw Score 

56.5 

34-75 

e a : 

-.32 

Otis IQ 

114.5 

92-133 

e a+b : 

-.22 

Stanford-Binet 

129.5 

108-140 

F: 

-.48 

IQ b 



PEC: 

-. 16 


a The mean Otis IQ of H4.5 is significantly above the population average 
of 100.0 (population S. D. is 10. 0). 

b The conversion of the Otis scores into Stanford-Binet IQ scores was 
done by means of a table prepared by Dr. E. E. Ghiselli. For the general 
population the Stanford-Binet has a mean of 100 , an S. D. of 16 . 

c 0tis Test data were available for 104 of the i05 cases in this sample* 

The N is, then, 104 for the correlations with F and PEC. The N is also 
104 for E^* since the Ea scores of the subjects taking Form 45 as well 
as of those taking form 40 were used. The N is 50 in the case o f E A+B 
(Form 45). 


TABLE 3 (VIII) 


MEAN WECHSLER- BELLEVUE IQ SCORE FOR EACH 
QUARTILE a OF THE ETHNOCENTRISM SCALE 
(PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC MEN AND WOMEN) 


Form 45 E-Scale Quart iles Range on E N Mean IQ 


Low quartile 

10-24 

8 

125.3 

Low middle quartile 

25-36 

5 

117.8 

High middle quartile 

37-50 

13 

1X3.9 

High quartile 

51-70 

11 

107.3 



37 

114.9 


a The subjects represent only a part of each quartile. In all, 15 of the 
50 men, and 22 of the 71 women, had received Wechsler-Bellevues. The 
men and women were similar with respect to proportion in each quartile, 
identical with respect to mean IQ. It is not clear why more upper-half 
than lower-half subjects have been tested. The mean of 1 1 4 approximates 
that for the patients generally. 






THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


284 

Test) IQ for the four E scale quartiles, and we find the equivalent of a low 
negative correlation. 

Tables 1-3 (VIII) indicate that, for individuals with IQ’s of approximately 
100 and above, there is a very low but dependable negative relationship be- 
tween intelligence and ethnocentrism: the most ethnocentric subjects are , on 
the average , less intelligent than the least ethnocentric , while the middle 
scorers on E are intermediate in IQ. 

Data on the San Quentin Men, not presented in the above tables, suggest 
a similar relation between E and IQ in groups having a wider intellectual 
range. Wechsler-Bellevue Test Scores were available on 77 of the no sub- 
jects in the San Quentin sample. This subsample had a mean E score of 4.68 
and a Standard Deviation of 1.28, as compared with the total-sample mean 
of 4.61 and S. D. of 1.28. The mean Wechsler-Bellevue IQ (full scale) was 
109.0, the S. D. 13.8, and the range 78-132. This subsample is, then, almost 
identical with the total (questionnaire) sample in E mean and S. D.; it is 
slightly more intelligent than the total prison population, whose mean IQ 
is just under 100. The obtained r between E and IQ was — .28. This value is 
of the same order of magnitude as those reported above for samples in which 
the IQ range was more constricted. It is, of course, not conclusive, since the 
tested sample may have been systematically biased in its selection. In addi- 
tion, other factors such as educational and class level are probably con- 
tributing to this correlation, since they seem to be at least slightly related 
to both E and IQ. A conclusive study of the relation between IQ and E 
would have to partial out, or to keep constant, these other factors. Never- 
theless, the series of negative r’s, on a variety of groups and by means of a 
variety of intelligence tests, provides substantial evidence of a significant 
relation between E and IQ. That the correlation is greater than zero, and in 
a negative direction, is in keeping with previous studies as well as with the 
results of the present study regarding the role of stereotypy and rigidity 
in ethnocentrism. That the correlation is only moderately close— apparently 
in the range of .2 to — .4 — is evidence that intelligence is only one of many 
variables which determine E-scale scores. 

Correlations between the Ability Tests and the F scale were computed 
for the Maritime School Men (Table 1 (VIII)) and the Employment Service 
Veterans (Table 2 (VTII)). In the former group the correlations range be- 
tween —.13 and —.20 while in the latter the extremely high value of —.48 
was obtained. It appears, then, that IQ is more closely related to F than to E 
although, except for the Veterans, the correlation is relatively small. Further 
study is required to determine whether or not the r of —.48 is spurious or 
exceptional. The higher correlations with F than with E might be explained 
on the basis of certain of the F clusters, e.g., superstition and stereotypv; 
correlations between IQ and the individual F items might well be obtained 



ETHNOCENTRISM IN RELATION TO INTELLIGENCE 285 

in future research. The correlation of —.16 between IQ and the PEC scale 
(Table 2 (VIII)) is consistent with other findings. 

That the relation between intelligence and ethnocentrism is not very close 
is suggested also by the over-all group data. Thus, while the three groups in 
Tables i -3 (VIII) are very similar in average IQ, they vary greatly in aver- 
age E score. The Psychiatric Clinic patients have an E mean of 3.7, a full 
point below the means for the Maritime School and Veteran Men. More- 
over, the latter groups, while extremely high in average IQ, are also among 
the most ethnocentric of all groups tested. It would seem, therefore, that 
high tested intelligence is no guarantee against the overall authoritarian 
pattern of ideology and personality. 

Data on the relation of ethnocentrism to amount of education are pre- 
sented in Tables 4 (VIII) and 5 (VIII). One of the most striking results is 

TABLE 4 (VIII) 

MEAN NUMBER OP YEARS OP EDUCATION FOR EACH 
QUARTILE OP THE ETHNOCENTRIC SCALE 
(PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC MEN AND WOMEN) 


Form 45 E Scale Quart iles 

Range on E 

N a 

Mean Yrs. Education 5 


Low quartile 

10-24 

29 

13.8 

Low middle quartile 

25-36 

28 

12.7 

High middle quartile 

37-50 

27 

11.8 

High quartile 

5!-70 

28 

11.2 



112 

12.4 


a These data are based on 45 of the 50 men, 66 of the 71 women. The means 
for men and women separately were so similar that they were combined in 
order to increase the N. 

bOne year has been added to the number of years of education in five 
cases where the individual had specialized training such as secretarial 
or accounting school. 

that these two variables are much more closely related in the Psychiatric 
Clinic group than in the Maritime School group. The average number of 
years of education drops gradually but consistently (from 13.8 to 11.2) in 
the Clinic group as score on the E scale increases (Table 4 (VIII)). How- 
ever, in the Maritime School data, computed in another manner, the changes 
are not so consistent. On the basis of the combined Forms 45 and 40 data, 
subjects with less than 12 years of education (i.e., not high school graduates) 
have the highest E mean, 4.9, while those with 12-14 years (there were no 
college graduates) had almost identical E means of about 4.6. However, 



286 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE 5 (VIII) 

MEAN E SCORE FOR GROUPS HAVING VARIOUS YEARS 
OF EDUCATION (MARITIME SCHOOL MEN) 


Years Education 

Form 45 (E A+B ) 

N Mean 

Form 40 (Ea) 

_N_ Mean 

Total 

N 

Group 

Mean 

Less than 12 

36 

4.38 

60 

5.21 

96 

4.90 

12 years 

104 

4. 28 

91 

5. 04 

195 

4. 63 

13 years 

13 

4. 75 

7 

4.40 

20 

4. 63 

14 years 

18 

4. 34 

6 

5. 17 

24 

4.55 

Blank 

7 

4. 63 

0 

— 

7 

4. 63 

Over- all 

178 

4.36 

164 

5.08 

342 

4.68 


there is some question as to whether the results for the two Forms should be 
combined, since the results for each Form separately are not so clear-cut. 
In the Form 45 group there is no consistent trend, the subjects with 13 years 
of education having the highest E mean and the other educational levels 
varying only within a range of 0.1 points. In the Form 40 group, on the 
other hand, the 13-year level is the least ethnocentric, while the 14-year 
group vies with the less-than-12 for the most ethnocentric position. The 
only difference that holds up for both Forms is that between the 12 and 
the less-than-12 year levels, and this difference borders on the 5 per cent 
level of statistical significance. 

Why is the relation between ethnocentrism and education more consistent 
in the Psychiatric Clinic group? One possibility is that the Maritime School 
members who had one or two years of college and then dropped out are 
systematically atypical, and that an unselected group of college students 
might be less ethnocentric. To the extent that this is true, a clear-cut relation- 
ship between ethnocentrism and education does exist. However, the relation 
in the case of the Psychiatric Clinic may be spuriously high, since the college 
students and college graduates in this sample are not a random sample of these 
educational levels. It is possible— though not yet demonstrated— that the col- 
lege-trained patients are, to a greater degree than those who did not attend 
college, selected for willingness to recognize the need for, and to seek, 
psychological aid. To the extent that this is true, the relationship between 
ethnocentrism and education is less clear-cut than these results indicate. 

One might venture the hypothesis that ethnocentrism is at least as closely 
related to the desired amount of education as to the actual amount. Thus 
the two Extension Classes (Forms 78 and 45), most of whose members were 



ETHNOCENTRISM IN RELATION TO INTELLIGENCE 287 

adults having only 12 years or less of schooling, but trying to “learn some- 
thing on the side” and perhaps even to obtain a college degree, had E means as 
low as those of the University of California students. There is also some 
clinical evidence to support this hypothesis. At any rate, examination of the 
various group means shows that two groups may have similar educational 
levels and very different E means, as well as similar E means and very dif- 
ferent educational levels. For example, the University of California students 
and the George Washington University Students, with similar educational 
levels, are significantly different in E means (Form 78, A-S scale, and Form 
40, E scale). Again, the Working-Class group, though similar in socioeco- 
nomic and educational background to the San Quentin group, is significantly 
less ethnocentric (Form 45). 

We may tentatively conclude that ethnocentrism shows a slight negative 
correlation with amount of education. It is likely, though far from a demon- 
strated fact, that college graduates are less ethnocentric than high school 
graduates, who are in turn less ethnocentric than those who did not complete 
high school. It is not clear which is more important: that the correlation is 
greater than zero, or that it is at best not far from zero. To those who urge 
education per se as a kind of panacea, the smallness of the correlation ought 
probably to be stressed. But this is not to deny the importance of education. 
It is, rather, to emphasize that our educational system, college as well as public 
school, is still far from realizing its potential strength as a social force in the 
service of democratic values. The reasons for this are outside the scope of 
the present research. It may also be pointed out that, even under the best 
educational conditions, exposure to the classroom is not enough, and that 
motivation to learn and receptivity to new ideas provide the only psycho- 
logical soil in which democratic education can develop effectively. 

In summary, ethnocentrism seems to have a low but statistically significant 
relation to both intelligence and education, the most educated and intelligent 
subjects being, on the average, the least ethnocentric. However, these varia- 
bles were studied only secondarily in the present research, and convincing 
determination of their relation to ethnocentrism requires more extended 
sampling, particularly of the lower educational and intellectual levels. It is 
also necessary to control more adequately the operation of other variables 
such as class level, educational opportunity and educational motivation. 
Nevertheless, the present results do contradict seriously one of the com- 
monly held theories of prejudice and fascism, namely, that they are sup- 
ported out of simple stupidity, ignorance or confusion. It would seem, rather, 
that an autocratic social structure is best suited to the particular type of ra- 
tionality exercised by the authoritarian personality. A promising field of 
future research is the study of what might be called “the dynamics of in- 
telligence.” For example, the intellectual functioning of ethnocentric indi- 
viduals, even those with above-average IQ’s, seems to be relatively rigid , 



288 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


to work better in relation to things than to people, to be primarily extra- 
ceptive, and to become disrupted when required to deal with more psy- 
chological issues, especially those involving personal needs and emotions 
(anti-intraceptive ) . 

As has been noted elsewhere (particularly in Chapter IV), the average IQ 
and the educational level of the entire sample used in the present research 
are probably somewhat above those of the general population, or, rather, 
above those of the urban middle class (our primary reference population). 
This sampling bias, together with that of age— our sample being somewhat 
younger than a representative sample would be— has probably resulted in 
our obtaining over-all means for the various scales which are slightly biased 
in the direction of being too low. However, the error seems to be less than 
might have at first been suspected. In addition, it is not likely that such 
sampling factors have distorted to any appreciable degree the relationships 
among the variables of ideology, personality, and group membership under 
investigation. Since we were primarily concerned with the causes and cor- 
relates of antidemocratic trends, that is, with correlations and differences, 
rather than with the average amount of any single trend per se, the diverse 
groups comprising the total sample provide, it would seem, an adequate 
basis for study. 



CHAPTER IX 


THE INTERVIEWS AS AN APPROACH 
TO THE PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 

Else Frenkel-Bruns'ivik 


A. INTRODUCTION: COMPARISON OF GROUPS 

Reference to the interviews has so far been limited to the discussion of 
two individual cases, with emphasis mainly on the pattern of social and po- 
litical issues (Chapter II). A series of five chapters beginning with the present 
will show the purpose and value of the interviews in their own right, cover- 
ing in a systematic fashion a variety of topics; furthermore, analysis will be 
in terms of groups rather than of single individuals (Chapters IX to XIII). 
Some special individuals or groups as well as some special issues will be taken 
up once more in later chapters, bringing in additional material from the 
interviews (Chapters XX to XXII). The problem of ideology as revealed 
through the interviews is not being considered in the series of chapters 
which makes up the present Part II; this problem will be taken up in Chap- 
ters XVI to XIX. 

The major advantage of the interview technique lies in the scope and free- 
dom of expression it offers to the person being studied. Thus we may learn 
what he thinks about himself, about his hopes, fears and goals, about his 
childhood and his parents, about members of the other sex, and about peo- 
ple in general. It is through careful and critical evaluation of sources of this 
kind that an adequate view of the total personality can perhaps best be ap- 
proximated. 

Rather than making an attempt to establish the dynamic interrelationships 
of the significant factors for each single individual, however, we shall look 
for a basis of generalizations within groups which will permit us, it is hoped, 
to come to grips with the social and psychological trends typical of the highly 
prejudiced and of the unprejudiced. Does the family constellation differ 
in the typical prejudiced home as compared with the typical unprejudiced 
home? Do prejudiced individuals tend to have different images of their 
parents than do unprejudiced ones? How does the handling of discipline vary 

291 




THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


2 9 2 

in this respect? Do prejudiced and unprejudiced individuals differ in their 
sex life, their way of choosing friends, their values, their general cognitive 
and emotional approach to life? These are some of the questions which will 
be the prime concern of the present series of chapters. By virtue of its speci- 
ficity and unique character, the interview may be called upon to yield, in 
the first place, information of this broader kind on the personality of those 
scoring high or low on anti-Semitism. 

In fact, it was a preliminary review of some of the crucial factors of this 
kind in a set of exploratory interviews which led to the construction of the 
F scale (Chapter VII). However, it was this and other scales, consisting of 
given statements calling for indications of agreement or disagreement only, 
upon which group comparisons between the personalities and the attitudes 
of prejudiced and unprejudiced subjects— now to be extended to the richer 
and more flexible type of evidence as given by an interview— have been thus 
far exclusively based in the present volume. On this comparatively limited 
basis, marked differences between these two groups were established. 

Questions as to the specific meaning and connotation of the various state- 
ments for the individuals concerned, however, had to be left open to a con- 
siderable extent. Further validation of the questionnaire data can be effected 
by probing in greater detail into the spontaneous elaborations a subject may 
be willing to make on the topics covered by the questionnaire. To obtain 
such additional information on results gathered by other techniques is a 
further goal in the subsequent analysis of the interviews. 

While the importance of the interview as source material is generally 
agreed upon in the social sciences, there are specific difficulties in evaluating 
such material. This is due mainly to the fact that interview material is highly 
diversified and unstructured. At the same time, the richness, flexibility, and 
spontaneity of this material are the features which constitute its major asset; 
room is left for unanticipated variations. To preserve all of this uniqueness 
and flavor, we should have to reproduce all, or at least the most outstanding, 
protocols in full— allowing the reader to form his own impressions and draw 
his own conclusions. 

Presentation in full, though doing maximal justice to the material, has its 
serious drawbacks. It would not be easy to survey and would of necessity 
leave to the reader much of the burden of interpretation, or else introduce 
a potentially arbitrary distribution of emphasis in the process of interpreta- 
tion. In the same manner, if we were to limit presentation itself to a few 
select protocols we might easily be criticized on grounds of possible ar- 
bitrariness in selection. 

For these reasons it was decided to attempt some kind of quantification 
within groups, rather than to present only clinical results based on intensive 
but more impressionistic case studies as was originally planned. For the kind 
of evaluation chosen, hypotheses were already formulated on an empirical 



INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 293 

basis, giving “hunches” for potential validation. The procedure consisted of 
a careful evaluation of the interview material in terms of an extensive set of 
scoring categories. These categories had been designed to encompass as 
much as possible of the richness and intricacy of the material at hand. (See 
E. Frenkel-Brunswik (31, 32, 36)). They were a product of intensive study 
of the interviews with full consideration of all the other evidence obtained 
from the individuals in question, especially their standing on the prejudice 
scales. The result was establishment of a Scoring Manual comprising about 
ninety categories and subcategories (see below). 

Evaluation of the interview protocols was by raters unfamiliar with the 
specific ideology of the subject, the Scoring Manual serving as a guide for 
ratings in terms of the various categories. 

In order to offer to the reader as much direct contact with the raw ma- 
terial of the interviews as possible, numerous quotations are inserted into the 
subsequent chapters. The raw material is arranged through the medium of 
the scoring categories, and the relationship of the latter to, or even their de- 
pendence on, the original material will become evident there. Many of the 
quotations presented were directly instrumental in designing the categories 
employed in their evaluation. Actually, the system of scoring categories 
reflects the theory or the interrelationships between personality and prej- 
udice which was empirically developed in the course of the exploratory study 
of the bulk of the interviews, individual by individual. This exploratory 
study preceded the more elaborate checking procedure in which the indi- 
vidual lost his identity in a mass of statistical evidence organized in terms of 
the scoring categories and evaluated in terms of larger groups. It is only 
through such a statistical procedure that the original hypotheses can be, 
and in fact have to a considerable extent been, verified. 

It was hoped that use of the variables defined by the scoring categories 
would help to bridge the existing gap between the studies of groups and of 
individuals and perhaps contribute to the establishment of a mutual give and 
take of facts and concepts. Indeed, some of the variables and relationships 
which were originally conceived of in the course of the generalized, sta- 
tistical establishment of personality patterns in samples of prejudiced vs. un- 
prejudiced people, were at the same time found to be crucial in the intensive 
study of single individuals or small groups (see Chapters XX, XXI, XXII). 

The subject’s view of his own life, as revealed in the course of the inter- 
view, may be assumed to contain real information together with wishful 
—and fearful— distortions. Known methods had to be utilized, therefore, and 
new ones developed to differentiate the more genuine, basic feelings, at- 
titudes, and strivings from those of a more compensatory character behind 
which are hidden tendencies, frequently unknown to the subject himself, 
which are contrary to those manifested or verbalized on a surface level. To 
cope with such distortions cues are available or may be developed to guide 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


2 94 

interpretations. The methodological safeguarding of such interpretations is 
one of the central problems in the approach to the interviews. The subse- 
quent analysis of the interview data will include discussion of this point. In 
general, it endeavors to add to our knowledge of the relationship of surface 
cues and underlying strivings, with special reference to the problems raised 
by the personality of the ethnically prejudiced. 

In the present chapter the securing of the interview material and the tech- 
nical aspects of its analysis will be discussed. The sample of the subjects in- 
terviewed as compared with the total sample will be described first. A 
characterization of the interviewers in terms of their background, training, 
and psychological point of view will also be given. Next, the Interview Sched- 
ule used and the technique employed in interviewing will be presented. This 
will be followed, in the concluding sections of this chapter, by a discussion 
of the methods used in the evaluation of the interview data. 

In the four following chapters a statistical analysis and discussion of the 
results gained from the study of the interviews will be presented, first in 
terms of a detailed set of rating categories (Chapters X to XII), and then 
in terms of over-all ratings and comprehensive description (Chapter XIII). 


B. SELECTION OF SUBJECTS FOR THE INTERVIEWS 
1. BASIS OF SELECTION 

The selection of the subjects to be interviewed was determined, in the 
first place, by their responses on the A-S or the E scale. With few exceptions 
(see below), all interviewees belonged either to the uppermost or to the 
lowermost quartile in this respect, the proportions of high-scoring and low- 
scoring subjects being approximately equal. 

Secondly, consideration was given to the response to the three scales of 
the questionnaire. Thus, an effort was made to include in the sample inter- 
viewed not only the most “typical” high scorers and low scorers, i.e., sub- 
jects with correspondingly high or low scores on the PEC and F scales, but 
also some of those more atypical subjects who obtained a high score on 
the first scales but a relatively low score on one or both of the others. 

Thirdly, an effort was made to balance our samples of high-scoring and 
low-scoring subjects in terms of age, sex, political and religious affiliation, 
as well as national or regional background. 

Of the thirty to forty different socioeconomic groups to which the ques- 
tionnaire had been administered (see Chapter IV), subjects for interviews 
were selected from the following twelve: Psychiatric Clinic Patients from 
the Langley Porter Clinic of the University of California (men and women, 
abbreviated LPC)-, University of California Public Speaking Class (men 



INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 295 

and women, PSAI and PSW ); Alameda School for Merchant Marine Of- 
ficers (men, Maritime ); San Quentin State Prison Inmates (men, SQ); Uni- 
versity of California Extension Testing Class (men and women, TC); Uni- 
versity of California Extension Psychology Class (men and women, EG); 
University of California Summer Session Education Class (men, EdPs)\ Stu- 
dents at the Pacific School of Religion (men, PSR)\ Employment Service 
Veterans (men, Vets')-, Professional Women— public school teachers, social 
workers, public health nurses (N and RW ); University of Oregon Summer 
Session Students (women, OG); Students at the University of California 
Medical School (women, Med). 

In all, approximately one hundred persons were interviewed. Some of 
the interviews could not be used in the final scoring, however. One reason 
for this was that some of the subjects scoring at the very extreme ends of 
the F scale distribution had been used by the scorers in a last checkup on 
the scoring manual and had therefore to be excluded later from the main 
analysis which was to be a “blind” one (see below). Other records had to be 
discarded because of their brevity or barrenness. 

The results to be reported in the subsequent chapters are based on the 
records of 80 interviewees, 40 men and 40 women. Of the men, 20 were high 
extremes on the E scale; and 20 were low extremes. For the women, the 
corresponding numbers were 25 and 15. The survey presented in Tables 1 
(IX) and 2 (IX) shows for each interviewee the code number, group extrac- 
tion, standing on responses to the various scales of the questionnaire, with 
parentheses used to designate membership in one of the middle quartiles. 

The rater’s “blind” diagnosis of the interview responses makes up the 
right half of the tables. It is to receive full discussion in Chapter XIII. 

2. REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE INTERVIEWEES 

A breakdown with respect to further characteristics of the interviewees, 
and a comparison of the samples interviewed— approximately one-tenth of 
the total of the groups mentioned above— with the entire upper and lower 
quartiles of our over-all samples, will show that our interview samples are 
fairly representative of the extreme quartiles defined in terms of overt anti- 
Semitism or ethnocentrism. A quantitative comparison is given in Table 
3 (IX). Inspection of the means of all the subjects falling into the upper and 
lower quartiles with those of corresponding groups of interviewees reveals 
a sufficiently close agreement. The interviewee samples are, more often than 
not, somewhat farther to the extreme end of the scale than the correspond- 
ing total extreme quartiles. This trend holds in spite of the fact that, as seen 
from Tables 1 (IX) and 2 (IX), in a few instances interviewees had to be 
taken from the extreme ends of the middle quartiles of the E scale. 

A further breakdown has been undertaken with respect to age, religion, 



296 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


TABLE 1 (IX) 


SURVEY OF 20 PREJUDICED AND 20 UNPREJUDICED MEN INTERVIEWED 8, 


Code 

No. 

Group 15 

Standing on 
Qiestionnaire c 

A-S E F PEC 

Interview Scores' 1 
"High" "Low" 

Composite 
Standing 
on 72 
Categories 

Intuitive 
Over -all 
Rating of 
Interviews 

Ml 

LPC 

h 

h 

<h) 

1 

27 

1 

H 

H 

M4 

P31 

h 

h 

1 

b 

47 

2 

H 

H 

M6 

PSM 

h 

b 

h 

h 

41 

2 

H 

H 

M7 

pa§ 

h 

h 

(1) 

1 

6 

32 

L 

L 

Mil 

PSM 

h 

h 

h 

h 

52 

2 

H 

H 

M13 

pai 

h 

h 

h 

<h) 

52 

1 

H 

H 

M14 

PSM 

h 

h 

<h) 

(1) 

8 

32 



M17 

PSM 

h 

<h) 

1 

h 

25 

4 

H 

. 1 -HLJH-; 1 

M18 

LPC 

h 

h 

h 

h 

33 

3 

H 


M20 

Maritime 

- 

h 

1 

1 

5 

40 

L 


M40 

SQ 

h 

h 

<h) 

h 

55 

2 

H 

H 

M41 

SQ 

h 

h 

h 

h 

49 

2 

H 

H 

M43 

SQ 

b 

h 

h 

1 

43 

3 

H 

H 

M45 

SQ 

h 

h 

h 

h 

48 

2 

H 

H 

M46 

TC 

h 

h 

1 

h 

42 

6 

H 

H 

M47 

SQ 

h 

b 

h 

h 

44 

2 

H 

H 

M51 

SQ 

h 

h 

h 

h 

36 

5 

H 

H 

M52 

SQ 

h 

h 

h 

h 

51 

4 

H 

H 

M57 

SQ 

h 

h 

h 

h 

56 

0 

H 

H 

M58 

TC 

h 

h 

h 

h 

54 

2 

H 

H 

Means of 20 






msm 



prejudiced men 









interviewees 







■■■ 


M2 

EG 

1 

1 

1 

1 

5 

52 


L 

M3 

PSM 

1 

I 

(I) 

1 

0 

53 


L 

M5 

PSM 

1 

1 

1 

I 

3 

34 


L 

M8 

PSM 

1 

<D 

1 

h 

5 

44 


L 

M9 

PSM 

1 

1 

1 

<&> 

39 

2 


H 

M10 

EdPs 

1 

1 

1 

1 

33 

7 


H 

M12 

EdPs 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

45 



M15 

LPC 

I 

1 

1 

1 

2 

43 



M16 

LPC 

1 

1 

1 

I 

6 

44 


L 

M19 

pai 

1 

I 

(1) 

<h) 

35 

0 

H 

H 

M42 

Maritime 

- 

I 

1 

1 

1 

57 

L 

L 

M44 

PSR 

1 

I 

I 

1 

2 

54 

L 

L 

M48 

Vets 

1 

1 

1 

1 

6 

37 

L 

L 

M49 

TC 

1 

I 

1 

I 

4 

42 

L 

L 

M50 

SQ 

1 

I 

1 

h 

10 

34 

L 

L 

M53 

Vets 

1 

1 

1 

I 

1 

52 

L 

L 

M54 

SQ 

1 

1 

1 

h 

12 

24 

L 

L 

M55 

TC 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

56 

L 

L 

M56 

SQ 

1 

1 

1 

1 

5 

41 

L 

L 

M50 

SQ 

1 

1 

1 

h 

14 

39 

L 

L 

Means of 20 





9.4 

38.0 



unprejudiced men 









interviewees 










a For discussion of the evaluation of the interviews and of the results 
shown in this table, see Section F of the present chapter, and Chapter 


b For key to abbreviations, see text, p. 294/95. 

c The upper and lower middle quartiles are indicated by the use of paren- 
theses with the letters h and 1 . 

d Number of ratings other than "Neutral.” Number of Neutrals is ob- 
tained by subtracting that of "High" and of "Low" from 72 (on Table 1 
(IX)) or 65 (on Table 2 (IX)). For selection of categories, see p. 
335. 

























INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 297 
TABLE 2 (IX) a 


SURVEY OP 25 PREJUDICED AND 15 UNPREJUDICED WOMEN INTERVIEWED 


code 

No. 

Group 

Standing on 
Questionnaire 

A-S E F PEC 

Interview Scores 

"High" "Low" 

composite 
Standing 
on 65 
Categories 

Intuitive 
Over- all 
Rating of 
Interviews 

F22 

PSW 

h 

(h) 

h 

<h) 

28 

1 

H 

H 

F24 

PSW 

h 

h 

h 

h 

37 

4 

H 

H 

F25 

LPC 

h 

h 

h 

h 

20 

7 

H 

H 

F26 

N 

h 

h 

(1) 

h 

9 

22 

L 

L 

F28 

RW 

h 

h 

h 

h 

19 

7 

H 

H 

F31 

PSW 

h 

h 

(h) 

h 

51 

0 

H 

H 

F32 

N 

h 

h 

h 

h 

34 

3 

H 

H 

F33 

TC 

h 

h 

h 

h 

3 

32 

L 

L 

F36 

TC 

h 

h 

(h> 

(1) 

27 

5 

H 

H 

F37 

EG 

h 

(h) 

h 

h 

21 

10 

H 

H 

F38 

PSW 

h 

h 

h 

h 

25 

14 

H 

H 

F39a 

N 

h 

h 

h 

(1) 

24 

5 

H 

H 

F60 

RW 

h 

h 

h 

(h) 

30 

6 

H 

H 

F61 

LPC 

h 

h 

1 

1 

23 

8 

H 

H 

F64 

RW 

h 

h 

h 

h 

0 

26 

L 

L 

F66 

PSW 

h 

h 

h 

1 

35 

7 

H 

H 

F67 

RW 

h 

h 

h 

h 

3 

28 

L 

L 

F68 

N 

h 

(h) 

1 

h 

32 

4 

H 

H 

F69 

PSW 

h 

h 

h 

h 

37 

7 

H 

H 

F71 

PSW 

h 

h 

h 

h 

47 

2 

H 

H 

F72 

LPC 

h 

h 

h 

h 

17 

26 

H 

L 

F74 

PSW 

h 

h 

h 

h 

45 

4 

H 

H 

F77 

LPC 

h 

h 

h 

1 

37 

4 

H 

H 

F78 

PSW 

h 

h 

h 

(h> 

44 

1 

H 

H 

F79 

OG 

h 

h 

h 

<h) 

36 

4 

H 

H 

Means of 25 





27.4 

9.5 



prejudiced women 









interviewees 









F21 

PSW 

1 

1 

1 

h 

24 

0 

H 

H 

F23 

TC 

1 

1 

(1) 

1 

2 

46 

L 

L 

F27 

PSW 

1 

(1) 

1 

1 

0 

53 

L 

L 

F29 

LPC 

1 

1 

1 

1 

7 

36 

L 

L 

F30 

RW 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

44 

L 

L 

F34 

PSW 

1 

1 

(1) 

1 

1 

49 

L 

L 

F35 

TC 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

42 

L 

L 

F39 

PSW 

1 

1 

1 

1 

38 

5 

H 

H 

F62 

PSW 

1 

1 

1 

h 

1 

44 

L 

L 

F63 

LPC 

1 

1 

1 

1 

4 

42 

L 

L 

F65 

PSW 

1 

1 

h 

1 

6 

44 

L 

L 

F70 

Med 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

38 

L 

L 

F73 

PSW 

1 

(1) 

1 

1 

1 

35 

L 

L 

n 5 

PW 

1 

(1) 

<h) 

1 

3 

43 

L 

L 

F76 

PSW 

1 

(1) 

(h> 

(1) 

14 

22 

L 

L 

Means of 15 

7.0 

36. 2 




unprejudiced women 
interviewees 


a See footnotes to Table 1 (IX) 






























l Since 75 out of the 80 interviewees are from among the subjects tested by Form 78 or Form 45. comparisons are 
here limited to these two groups. 


INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 299 

and politics. To maintain anonymity, these data are not included in the tables 
just mentioned which deal with individual subjects, but are presented in a 
statistical manner in Tables 4 (IX) to 6 (IX). For men, a few data on religion 
and politics are missing; hence the discrepancies in the sums relating to the 
total quartiles. 

On the whole, the distributions of the interviewees and of corresponding 
extreme quartiles are not at too great odds with one another, considering 
the difficulties in finding subjects with the exact combination of qualifica- 
tions. The more striking deviations from close correspondence may be listed 
as follows: 

With respect to age (Table 4 (IX)), there are no low-scoring women 
interviewees in the age bracket of “46 and over”; the share of this bracket 


TABLE 4 (IX) 

AGE DISTRIBUTION IN TOTAL EXTREME QUARTILES AND INTERVIEWEES 
(NUMBERS OP THE LATTER ARE SPECIFIED IN PARENTHESES) 


Age Groups 

High Quartile 

Low Quartile 



Men 

Women 

Men 

Women 

16 - 22 

59 (6) 

70 (8) 

60 (4) 

60 

(9) 

23 - 30 

88 (8) 

55 (5) 

90 (10) 

61 

(3) 

31 - 45 

78 (5) 

59 (6) 

93 (4) 

75 

(3) 

46 and over 

53 (1) 

51 (6) 

36 (2) 

49 

(0) 

Suras / 

278 ( 20) 

235 (25) 

279 ( 20) 

245 

(15) 


is added to the youngest age group. Furthermore, there is only one high- 
scoring male interviewee in this highest age bracket. Our interviewee sample 
is therefore on the younger side when compared with all the subjects. 

The major deviation with respect to religion (Table 5 (IX)) is that three 
(i.e., 20 per cent) of the low-scoring women interviewees are Catholics while 
the corresponding figure for the “low” women in our total sample is only 

TABLE 5 (IX) 

RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION IN TOTAL EXTREME QUARTILES AND INTERVIEWEES 
(NUMBERS OP THE LATTER ARE SPECIFIED IN PARENTHESES) 


Rel igious 
Affiliation 

Catholic 

Protestant 

None 

Blank 


High Quartile Low Quartile 

Men Women Men Women 


47 (7) 40 ( 7) 29 (1) 10 ( 3) 

185 (11) 184 (17) 156 (14) 156 (7) 

15 (2) 9 (0) 65 (5) 70 (5) 

13 (0) 2 (1) 11 (0) 9 (0) 


Sums 


260 ( 20 ) 235 ( 25) 


261 (20) 245 (15) 





THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


300 

10 (4 per cent). On the positive side, we may single out for special mention 
the fact that there is close agreement of corresponding figures for both high 
scorers and low scorers when the categories “None” and “Blank” are pooled; 
it may thus be said that both high-scoring and low-scoring interviewees are 
representative of their extreme quartiles with respect to indifference to or 
rejection of religion. 

As to politics (Table 6 (IX)), “liberal” women are more numerous among 
the interviewees than among the corresponding quartiles, especially so far 


TABLE 6 (IX) 

POLITICAL OUTLOOK IN TOTAL EXTREME QUARTILES AND INTERVIEWEES 
(NUMBERS OP THE LATTER ARE SPECIFIED IN PARENTHESES) 


Political 

High Quart ile 

Low Quartile 

Outlook 

Men 

Women 

Men 

Women 

Liberal 

Conservative 

Leftist 

Misc. and blank 

99 (7) 

112 (10) 

0 (0) 

49 (3) 

98 (17) 

109 (5) 

0 (0) 

28 (3) 

156 (14) 

45 (2) 

22 (3) 

38 ( 1) 

173 (12) 

23 (0) 

21 (2) 

28 (1) 

Sums 

200 ( 20) 

235 ( 25) 

261 (20) 

245 (15) 


as the high scorers are concerned (98 to 17, i.e., 68 to 42 per cent). This latter 
fact, however, does not hold for men. The comparatively small group of 
leftists or radicals (covering those who gave their attitude as “socialist” or 
as “communist”) is represented with relatively greater frequency among in- 
terviewees (two women and three men, all low scorers). 

3. APPROACHING THE INTERVIEWEES 

An effort was made to maintain anonymity for all those interviewed as 
well as to convince them of the fact that they would remain unidentified. 
Pains were taken to conceal from the interviewee the true basis of selection. 

In particular, the following procedure was adopted in securing the co- 
operation of the prospective interviewee: After the questionnaire responses 
had been evaluated, the person who had administered the questionnaire 
appeared at one of the next meetings of the group in question and an- 
nounced that further information was required of some of those who had 
answered the questionnaire. Those selected were identified in terms of 
their birthdates only and asked to arrange for an appointment after the meet- 
ing. 

At the beginning of the actual interview they were told that they had been 
selected on the basis of age and regional origin. The interviewers gained the 
impression that in this way the anxiety as to the basis of selection was sue- 



INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 3OI 

cessfully removed. Actually, not one of even the highest scorers ever showed 
signs of knowing the true reason for his or her selection, although some of 
them showed signs of suspiciousness of a more general nature. The reason 
for this naivete seems to lie primarily in the fact that most high scorers 
do not think of themselves as particularly prejudiced. 

In most cases an invitation to be interviewed was readily accepted. The 
motivation seemed to be primarily the desire to talk about oneself and the 
implicit hope of receiving some advice in the process. To some of the subjects 
the added incentive of a remuneration ($3 per test or interview) seemed not 
unimportant. 

The interviews lasted from one and a half to three hours and were usually 
conducted in one session. As a rule they were held in one of the offices of 
the Berkeley Public Opinion Study, in an atmosphere of comfort and 
quiet. When it was impractical or impossible for the subject to come to 
the office (as was the case especially with the prison group) the interviewer 
went to see the subject. 

C. THE INTERVIEWERS 

Certain specifications were also maintained as far as those conducting the 
interviews were concerned. Men were always interviewed by men, women 
only by women. All high-scoring subjects were interviewed by American- 
born Gentiles. 

There were altogether nine interviewers. Although all were college grad- 
uates and psychologically trained, their backgrounds varied to a consider- 
able extent. More than half of them had special experience and training in 
clinical psychology and considerable familiarity with the basic concepts of 
psychoanalysis. Four of them had undergone psychoanalysis, and one of 
these is a practicing psychoanalyst. Two of the remaining interviewers had 
primarily a social psychological rather than a clinical orientation. Another 
two had the traditional rather than the dynamic clinical approach. In conse- 
quence, some difference of emphasis in the collection of data had to be 
anticipated. This probably made for greater variety of scope in the inter- 
views as a whole, although at the sacrifice of strict uniformity of pro- 
cedure. 

In order to secure a reasonable amount of uniformity, a detailed Inter- 
view Schedule, described in Section E, was worked out in advance. Not all 
the questions could be asked of all subjects, but an effort was made to cover 
all the major points with each interviewee. A relative preponderance of the 
ideological or of the clinical aspects was found to exist in accordance with 
the background of the interviewer. 

All interviewers had a copy of the Interview Schedule together with a 
special instruction sheet, both to be discussed in detail below. In preliminary 



302 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


conferences all interviewers clarified every point of inquiry before seeing 
any of the interviewees. 

D. SCOPE AND TECHNIQUE OF THE INTERVIEW 
1. GENERAL PLAN FOR THE INTERVIEW 

As was the case in the preparation of the questionnaire, the Interview 
Schedule was developed on the basis of theoretical considerations as to what 
is relevant with respect to the topic under investigation. We can roughly 
differentiate two types of hypotheses underlying the schedule, the “directed” 
ones and the “categorical” ones. The former are based on specific expecta- 
tions in regard to the relationships to be obtained (e.g., it was tentatively 
assumed that a positive relationship would be found between “rigidity” and 
prejudice). This relationship can be hypothetically deduced from general 
psychological considerations and, besides, it was tentatively supported by 
preliminary studies. In contrast to this type of directed hypothesis, the 
categorical ones assume that there will be some relationship between a certain 
category and prejudice without its being possible to anticipate its direction. 

The Schedule was revised on the basis of the evidence gained in explora- 
tory interviewing. As the Interview Schedule is described, the reader should 
keep in mind that not all of the dimensions there proved equally discriminat- 
ing. The idea was to study the major fields of sociopsychological develop- 
ment in relation to the establishment of social and political beliefs. In the 
present chapter the entire Interview Schedule is reported, but it will not 
become evident until the results are discussed in the subsequent chapters 
which dimensions are the crucial ones in differentiating prejudiced and un- 
prejudiced subjects. 

The major areas covered in the interviews are: i. Vocation; 2. Income; 3. 
Religion; 4. Clinical Data; 5. Politics; 6. Minorities and “Race.” Each of these 
headings has been covered in part by previous techniques. The interviews, 
however, went considerably beyond the information gathered by the other 
techniques. 

In each case the interview was preceded by the study, on the part of the 
interviewer, of the information gathered previously, especially a detailed 
study of the questionnaire responses. 

Our selection of the particular categories listed seems justified in view 
of the fact that we are dealing with patterns of political and social beliefs 
in relation to personal and environmental factors, the latter being regarded 
as potential determiners of a choice on the part of the subject between al- 
ternative ideologies offered by our culture. 

There was no rigid adherence by the interviewer to any particular order 
of topics. The rationale for the suggested order— that in which the topics 
are taken up in the discussion which follows— was that it might be well to 
start with something relatively peripheral, like vocation. People like to talk 



INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 303 

about their vocation and are often looking for advice in this matter. This 
provides the necessary warming up for the interviewee. Income comes next, 
since it is also considered relatively peripheral, though in some cases there 
is considerable sensitivity about this matter. The interview then could turn 
to religion and from there proceed to the more intimate clinical data. It 
usually concluded with questions about politics and minorities in the hope 
of getting, at the end of the interview, more personalized reactions on these 
topics which are so crucial for our major problem. At the same time, these 
topics lead back, at the end of the interview, to more external issues. 

2. “UNDERLYING” AND “MANIFEST” QUESTIONS 

In preparing the Interview Schedule, an analysis was made of the relevant 
psychological and social factors in each of the main areas to be covered. 
This analysis was based both on general social and personality theory and on 
findings from the exploratory interviews. As a result of these considera- 
tions, a number of so-called “underlying questions” were formulated to 
indicate for the interviewer which psychological aspects of the particular 
topic should be covered. These underlying questions were meant only as a 
guide for the interviewer. They had to be concealed from the subject in order 
that undue defenses might not be established through recognition of the 
real focus of the interview. 

A set of direct, “manifest” questions, on the other hand, gave the inter- 
viewer suggestions as to the kind of questions that should actually be asked 
in order to throw light on the “underlying” issues. It was not intended, how- 
ever, that the interviewer should rigidly adhere to the questions suggested. 
Depending on the subject’s personality structure and on what topics he 
brought up himself, the interviewer formulated manifest questions as he 
went along, bearing in mind constantly, however, the underlying questions. 
As experience accumulated, more suitable manifest questions were formu- 
lated in advance of the interviews and used in a more uniform manner. 

3. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INTERVIEWERS 

The general instructions which were given to the interviewers are as fol- 
lows: 

The careful and rather minute detail of the present Interview Schedule should 
not mislead the new interviewer. We do not intend that he should follow this 
schedule literally, in fact, we are definitely against this. Rather, the Interview 
Schedule should be regarded as providing a general orientation for the interviewer. 
It lists kinds of things we hope to obtain from the subject as well as suggestions as 
to how these things might indirectly be obtained by questioning. Not all of the 
kinds of things are relevant to each subject nor should all of the questions be asked 
each subject; in many cases an entirely original line of questioning will be necessary. 

Different types of interviews can be thought of as varying between two extremes: 
on the one hand, a completely “controlled” interview in which the interviewer fol- 
lows a rigidly defined set of questions for all subjects; and on the other hand, an 
extremely “free” interview in which the interviewer asks only the most general 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


3°4 

questions, the sequence of questions being determined primarily by the subject s 
answers. 

Our prototypic interview falls between these two extremes but is somewhat 
closer to the latter. There are six broad areas which must be covered: Vocation, In- 
come, Religion, Clinical Material, Politics, and Minority Groups. Within each area 
we make a basic distinction between Underlying Questions and Suggested Direct 
Questions. (Note that within each area in the interview schedule, we first list the 
Underlying Questions, and then the Suggested Direct Questions.) The Underlying 
Questions are those which the interveiwer asks himself about the subject; they are 
the variables by means of which we want to characterize the subjects; but you don’t 
ask a person “Do you really libidinize your work?” or “What is your underlying 
image of the Jew?” The procedure here is methodologically the same as our pro- 
cedure with the indirect items of the F scale; we ask questions the answers to which 
give insights regarding hypotheses which are never explicitly stated in the inter- 
view. Clearly, the Direct Questions used to get answers to a given Underlying Ques- 
tion will vary greatly from subject to subject, depending in each case on the sub- 
ject’s ideology, surface attitudes, defenses, etc. Nevertheless, we have been able to 
formulate for each underlying question a number of direct questions, based on our 
general theory and experience. The list of direct questions, as stated above, should 
be regarded as tentative and suggestive only. The suggested direct questions, like 
other surface techniques used by the study, should be changed from time to time in 
the light of new theory and experience. 

The interview should be related closely to the subject’s questionnaire. As a result 
of the coordination of interview and questionnaire, the latter contains items bearing 
on each of the six broad areas of the interview. For the convenience of the inter- 
viewers, an initial section within each of the six areas contains references to the rele- 
vant questionnaire items. It must be emphasized that careful study of the question- 
naire beforehand is essential for an adequate interview. The questionnaire by itself 
reveals many important points under each topic; it also suggests hypotheses which 
can be verified in the interview. Pre-interview study of the questionnaire, then, 
gives the interviewer a more structured approach to the interview and should be 
done in all possible cases. 

(Some further general directions are given below as parenthetic com- 
ments to the headings of the sections listing the underlying and the direct 
questions where they first appear in the Schedule.) 

E. THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 1 

A detailed description of each section of the Interview Schedule will help 
to clarify the procedure described. 

1. VOCATION 

By means of the questionnaire, information was obtained about the 
present and the desired occupation of the subject and about attitudes toward 
work in general. Over and above that, the main function of the underlying 

i While the responsibility for the analysis of the interview material rested mainly with 
the author of the present and the subsequent chapters, the Interview Schedule presented 
here is a joint product of the entire staff of this project. 



INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 305 

questions guiding the interview in this area was to find out (a) the meaning 
which vocation has for the subject, in its work and social aspects, and (b) 
the determinants of the choice of his vocation. 

More specifically, it was relevant to our problem to find out how much 
genuine interest and libido the subject has for his work. Does his work rep- 
resent for him a gratifying and constructive form of self-expression and 
achievement or does he consider his work as “drudgery” and as a mere 
means to some end such as attaining money, status, or power? Keeping in 
mind that the importance of success is a generalized pattern in our culture, 
we still expected that our material would differentiate people who are 
oriented primarily toward the subject matter of their work and toward real 
achievement from those for whom only the peripheral aspect of the work 
is meaningful, e.g., as a means for placing them within a hierarchy (leader 
or follower, an adjutant to the boss). Vocation can thus be viewed from the 
angle of its possibilities as a means to group identification and especially to 
identification with higher social circles. The wish to be a link in a hierarchical 
chain seems of importance to many of our subjects. The emphasis on the 
constructive content or the social values of work as contrasted with em- 
phasis on mastery of technology and manipulation of resources and people 
is relevant in this connection. As an illustration of the background elements 
continually entering into the construction of the Interview Schedule, the 
well-known connection between Nazi ideology and emphasis on technology 
may be mentioned here. 

In the attitude toward work, however, as in all of our material, the possi- 
bility of orientation on different levels has to be kept in mind. The wish to 
escape a kind of work which is experienced as drudgery often goes hand in 
hand with a superficial emphasis on the importance of “hard work,” both for 
reasons of success and for reasons of morality. A very general emphasis 
on the importance of work is often associated with an absence of concrete 
and specific ideas about the content of work. On the other hand, a more 
libidinized attitude toward work is often both more relaxed and more 
specific, and it differentiates less between work and pleasure. The role of 
the social aspects of work, e.g., intergroup feeling, or general sociability 
and friendship, has also been explored. Attention of the interviewer has been 
directed, further, toward other personality needs as expressed in special 
cases. 

The problem of how far identification with, or rebellion against, the 
parents determined the choice of vocation, was the starting point for further 
inquiry. 

After listing the underlying questions which seemed relevant to the 
problem of vocation, a set of manifest, direct questions was suggested after 
the fashion described above. The part of the Interview Schedule dealing with 
vocation is presented here in full. Since most of the direct questions are self- 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


30 6 

explanatory in their purpose and rationale, no further explanations will be 
made. (In order to structure the somewhat lengthy Interview Schedule 
when in use by the interviewer, key words and phrases which were in- 
tended especially to catch his or her attention were underscored or capital- 
ized. All such matters are left intact in the entire presentation of the schedule 
so as to reflect all shades of emphasis, using italics for underscoring.) 

Interview Schedule 

1. VOCATION 

Underlying Questions (What it is that we want to find out) : 

a. Meaning of vocation to subject (in work and social aspects): 

1. Work-libido: subject-matter interest, relatedness to work, integra- 
tion of work, and leisure activities. Genuine Sublimations. 

2. Aspirations: Real Achievement drive versus interest in “Success” 
Status , Prestige, Money, Power. 

3. Technological -Manipulative attitudes? 

4. Hierarchical thinking (leader-follower; the “lieutenant,” etc.). 

5. In-group feeling. 

6. Concern with “ Social Value ” of the work. 

7. Role of Sociability and friendship on the job. (Distinguish super- 
ficial gregariousness versus genuine friendship.) 

8. Attitudes re Wife working. 

9. Other special personality needs. 

b. Determinants of choice: 

1 . Parental identification or rebellion. 

2. Other. 

Suggested Direct Questions: 

(It is understood that in no interview can all of these questions be asked. 

The interviewer proceeds with his attention fixed primarily upon the 
underlying questions, using whatever direct questions seem most promising 
in the context of the moment. Moreover, it is not expected that the inter- 
viewer will always use the phraseology set down here. It is our belief, how- 
ever, that all of these questions are good; they are being used frequently by 
the interviewers at the present time, and as experience accumulates, there 
will be more and more subjects who have been asked exactly the same 
question.) 

Appeal 

a. In what ways does Appeal to you? (N.B., Don't ask auto- 

matically, “How does the job appeal”: if subject is a janitor, e.g., find 
out first Whether subject’s job appeals to him; if appropriate, find out 
what Would appeal to him and inquire about this instead.) 

What does offer you? 

What are the main Advantages of (being a) ? Satisfactions? 

What it is like to be a ? 

b. What are the Less Attractive aspects of (being a) ? Disadvan- 

tages? 

c. What does the Future look like in this field? 



INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 
Alternatives 

d. Do you feel that you are “cut out” for this type of work (or profes- 
sion)? 

What Other Things do you feel you might be “cut out” for? 

Have you ever seriously considered other Vocations? Had Other 
dreams? 

Under what conditions might you Change (i.e., from present voca- 
tion)? 

History 

e. When did you Decide to be a ? 

How did you come to be interested in ? 

What made you decide to be a ? 

What did your Parents (father, mother) want you to be? 

What do your Parents think of ? 

How has your father liked his work? 

(Get work history if striking jobs, or many changes.) 

Wife 

f. Does your Wife Work? (If subject is woman: Have you worked since 
your marriage?) How do vou feel about that? (How does your hus- 
band?) 


2. INCOME 

Here, as in the case of vocation, some gross information, e.g., size of in- 
come, was gained by means of the questionnaire. The function of the inter- 
view was to find out the degree of “money-mindedness,” the aspirations and 
fantasies centering around money. Is money per se important, or is it im- 
portant for what it can give? Of relevance here is the emphasis on status as 
narcissistic enhancement of one’s own person, own power, or own security, 
which can be realistic or exaggerated. There can be a realistic emphasis on a 
good life or on exaggerated craving for luxuries; the latter is often observed 
in those of our subjects who are not rooted in the constructive task of daily 
living but whose repressed anxieties, aggressions, and infantile cravings 
call for an escape into a living that is full of excitement. Here again the 
orientation toward different levels is important. An extreme money-minded- 
ness as revealed in more concrete and specific contexts often goes hand in 
hand with denial of the importance of money on a superficial level and often 
even with an emotional rejection of the “rich.” 

The attitude toward charity was also explored in this connection as a pos- 
sible manifestation of atonement which, in turn, is known to be a reaction 
to aggression. From a social point of view, charity often has the function 
of keeping the underprivileged in their place, kindness acting in effect as a 
humiliating factor. 

Another important factor leading to a group of underlying questions is 
realism vs. autism with respect to thinking and to goal behavior in this field. 
A considerable discrepancy between fantasies and reality in the attitude to- 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


308 

ward economic goals, combined with lack of a structured path and lack of 
readiness to work and to postpone pleasure, might make one susceptible to 
the use of socially destructive behavior as a means of attaining, by a short 
cut, fulfillment of one’s infantile dreams and gratifications. Again, lack of a 
real readiness to work can be hidden behind general emphasis or overem- 
phasis on work, especially since work in these cases represents an unpleasant 
duty. Over and above this, psychoanalysts have claimed that the attitude to- 
ward money reveals early instinctual fixations and anxieties and the way of 
dealing with them, e.g., anal retention or expulsion, or money as a symbol of 
potency. 

Of particular theoretical importance is the set of questions which deals 
with socioeconomic background, especially the changes in economic level 
in the family of the subject. Sudden changes either upward or downward 
might be followed by a lack of adaptation in the whole socioeconomic sphere 
and might make this sphere similar to a “weak organ,” especially susceptible 
to becoming a medium for the acting out of difficulties. This is what H. 
Hartmann has called the “compliance of social factors,” in analogy to Freud’s 
concept of the “compliance of organs” in the occurrence of physical disease. 
Inquiry was also made into the ways financial matters were handled by the 
parents. The role of economic frustrations was followed up. 

A final question of interest is whether a certain personality structure alone 
is sufficient to establish a selection from among existing ideologies, e.g., prej- 
udice, or if, in addition to that, a special socioeconomic history and condi- 
tion of the family is required for, or especially conducive to, the acting out 
of difficulties in the social sphere. 

The underlying and manifest questions in the sphere of income are con- 
tained in the following part of the Interview Schedule. 


Interview Schedule 

2. INCOME 


Underlying Questions: 

a. Money -Mindedness. 

b. Aspirations and Fantasies. 

1. Status (narcissistic). 

2. Power, Manipulation. 

3. Security (Realistic versus Neurotic). 

4. Charity-Nurturance-Guilt Fantasies. 

5. Lavish Living, Excitement. (Q. Is a subject with “live dangerously— 
win a lot or lose a lot”— attitudes really willing to take chances? 

c. Realistic versus Autistic Thinking. 

1. How much distance separates present from aspired status? 

2. How well is the path to the goal structured for subject? 

3. What are subject’s Real Chances of reaching the goal? 



INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 

4. Is there a Discrepancy between subject’s Fantasies and his Actual 
Expectations? 

d. Determinants in Social Background. 

1. Parental Attitudes toward money. 

2. Parental Socioeconomic Level (including changes) during subject’s 

childhood and adolescence. ° 

3. How much Status-Change has (an older) subject experienced since 
youth? 

4. What Economic Frustrations has subject experienced? 

Suggested Direct Questions : 

Present Frustrations 

a. How do you Get Along on (present income)? 

Do you have a Car? (What make, model, and year? ) 

What do you Miss Most that your present income doesn’t permit? 
Aspirations and Fantasies 

b. What would you Do with (Expected Income)? With Desired In- 
come? ) 

What would it Make Possible (Enable you to do? ) 

What would it Mean to you? 

c. What is the Most Important Thing Money can Give a person? 

Some people say that the best things in life are free; others say that when 
you come right down to it, money is really important. How Important 
is Money Really? v 

How much is an adequate income for, say, a family of four? 

There’s an old saying, “A penny saved is a penny earned”; but then 
again, some people prefer the idea of “Easy come, easy go.” How do 
you feel about that? 

Some people like to take Chances: “Win a lot, lose a lot”; then other 
people are more Cautious about money. What’s your attitude? 

Realism 

d. What s the Likelihood of your making _ ten years from now? 

How good are your Chances of making ? How do you expect 

to Reach that income? r 

What are your Plans for Attaining that income? 

History 8 

e. How did you Get Along during the Depression? (If necessary to get a 
clear picture, inquire as to specific details of living.) 

Were you Out of a Job for any length of time? 

What’s the Highest Income you’ve ever had? When was that? 

How much did you make on your First Job? (i.e., the first full-time job 
after leavmg school.) 

f. (If he chooses, the interviewer may obtain at this point-rather than 

later under Clinical— information re Parental Socioeconomic Level dur- 
ing subject s childhood and adolescence. Ask specific questions to get 
information re type of home, number of rooms, neighborhood, vaca- 
tions, cars, servants, recreation, entertaining, allowances for children 
versus necessity for children to work, whether worked, whether father 
ever out of a job, etc. Get subject’s reactions to this— especially to 
changes in level.) J 


309 



3io 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 

g. (Get at Parental Policies and Attitudes re spending-casualness; display; 
etc.-saving, consistency of policies, any differences between mother 
and father, etc., by special inquiry in connection with discussion of sub- 
ject s own attitudes, especially those elicited by questions under (c) 
above. Or, some of the above questions— especially those not asked of 
subject— may be repeated for the parents.) 

3. RELIGION 

Religion, perhaps more than the preceding areas, seems to lie at the 
point of interaction of social and personal factors. The purposes of the 
underlying questions in this category was to find out whether religion 
represents to the subject a further effort toward belonging to a privileged 
group and the explicit acceptance of a set of conventionalized mores and 
rules of behavior prevalent in a majority group, or whether religion repre- 
sents a system of more internalized, genuine experiences and values. In the 
former case religion tends to assume the function of an external authority 
deciding what is good and what is bad, thus relieving the individual from 
making his own decisions and assuring him at the same time of membership 
in a privileged group. The rejection of outgroup religions goes hand in hand 
with this attitude. 

The manifest questions on religion were designed to find out which of the 
attitudes just described is dominant in the subject. Furthermore, they were 
aimed at various subtle aspects of these different attitudes. Questions such 
as that inquiring into the concept of God were introduced to reveal whether 
God is conceived more directly after a parental image and thus as a source 
of support and as a guiding and sometimes punishing authority or whether 
God is seen more as an abstract entity representing general values and prin- 
ciples. In the former case an attempt was made to ascertain whether the 
emphasis is more on the punitive or on the nurturant qualities. 

An effort was also made to inquire into the reasons for rejection of religion. 
A rejection of religion on rational and scientific grounds belongs in a dif- 
ferent syndrome from rejection of religion out of an attitude of sober 
cynicism and manipulative opportunism. Questions as to the history of the 
conflict, in the subject, between science and religion were also asked. Areas 
in which there was a readiness to follow a rational approach were noted, as 
well as those in which irrational explanations were preferred. 

It is of interest for our purposes to ascertain further whether the attitude 
toward religion is simply taken over from the parents or whether any change 
has occurred in the direction of rebellion against religious attitudes prevalent 
in the family or in the direction of an increase and deepening of religious 
feelings as compared with those of the parents. How did agreement or dif- 
ference of opinion in the parents with respect to religion influence the out- 
look of the subject? 

The underlying and manifest questions about religion are as follows: 


INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 


Interview Schedule 
3. RELIGION 

Underlying Questions: 

a. Ingroup-Outgroup feelings (including moralism). (Does subject have 
idea of “Good enough for my fathers, so good enough for me”? ) 

b. Attitudes toward Organized Religion and the Church. 

c. Internalization. 

d. Philosophical Pattern (personalization; concern re “Beginning,” etc.; 
degree of dogmatism and fundamentalism; nature and crudity of wish- 
satisfactions). 

e. Nature and degree of Supernaturalism. (Including attitudes toward 
irrational experiences and toward unusual coincidences.) 

f. Role of Ethics (degree of internalization). (Get subject to go into detail 
on. Christianity, and bring up later in discussing race.) 

g. Role of Superego: Internalized Conscience vs. Externalized Authority. 

h. Special Personality Meanings. 

Suggested Direct Questions: 

General Importance 

a. What are your Views on religion? 

What does your religion Offer you? 

What Appeals to you most in religion? 

What is the Most Important Thing in Religion? 

How Important Should Religion be in a person’s life? 

Philosophy 

b. What is your conception of God? 

What is your attitude toward (do you think about) Prayer, the Bible, 
Immortality? 

Do you believe there is conflict between Science and Religion? 

Has there been such a conflict in the past? 

Is there likely to be in the future? (If No: Inquire whether subject 
accepts (1) a rationalized system of belief; (2) a dichotomy between 
science as physical, religion as spiritual; (3) a fundamentalist rejection; 
or what.) 

Ingroup 

c. What are the main (most important) differences between your religion 
and others? 

How important are the differences among the various sects? 

What do you think of Atheists? 

Ethics 

What does it Mean to be a Christian? 

How can you Tell a Christian? 

What is the Main Difference between Christians and Other People? 
What is the Most Important of Christ’s Teachings? 

History 

d. What was the nature of your early Religious Training? 

What was the Religious Atmosphere in your Home? 

In what ways do you differ from Your Parents in Religion? From vour 
Wife (Husband)? 7 



312 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


In what ways did your Parents Differ in Religious Matters? (If subject 
broke away from parental teachings: Get history; also get reactions to 
differences with spouse.) 

Have you ever Questioned your religious beliefs? 

Since data on religion and political ideology had to be excluded from the 
material presented to the interview raters (see below, Section F, 3), the part 
of the interview based on the preceding questions will not be taken up for 
discussion until later in this volume (Chapter XVIII). 

4. CLINICAL DATA 

In the clinical section of the interview an attempt was made to obtain as 
much personal data relevant to our problem as was possible in a single sitting 
and without producing anxieties in the subject. With respect to this area, 
even more than in the case of the others, the subject had to be unaware of the 
direction intended by the interview. Care was taken to avoid offering inter- 
pretations to the subject for which he was not ready and the effect of which 
could not be followed up and worked out. Here, as in the other sections, the 
almost general desire of the subjects to talk about themselves in a professional 
and confidential situation was of great help to the interviewer. 

A variety of personal data had been collected by previous techniques. This 
material, as pointed out above, was at the disposal of the interviewer, who 
studied it before starting the interview. The first two sheets of the question- 
naire brought out some gross information about the subject’s personal life. 
Above and beyond that, the type of information which had to be obtained 
by the interviewer was based on hypotheses as to what aspects of personal 
life might be expected to influence the pattern of social beliefs and attitudes. 

The information gained in the entire clinical area by previous methods is 
represented in the Schedule below. In view of the length of the clinical part 
of the interview schedule, the questions are presented and discussed under 
six major headings, as follows: (a) Family Background: Sociological Aspects; 
(b) Family Figures: Personal Aspects; (c) Childhood; (d) Sex; (e) Social 
Relationships; (f) School. 

a. Family Background: Sociological Aspects. The sociological aspects 
of the family background seem of particular relevance in the present context. 
The national origin of parents was explored in order to find out whether 
relative “purity” or mixture of national origin is related to prejudice. Al- 
though this problem was considered important, there was no specific expec- 
tancy as to the direction of the results. 

The group memberships of the parents were to be taken as an indication 
of how much stress was placed by the family on the idea of “belonging” and 
of how much the parents considered themselves as individuals or mainly as 
members of different groups and organizations. The whole socioeconomic 
picture of the parents, and possibly of the grandparents, the status achieved 



INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 3 1 3 

as well as that aspired to, had to be understood in order to throw light on 
the security or the tensions existing, in this area, within the family. 

The underlying and direct questions on the sociological aspects of the 
family background are presented here. 

Interview Schedule 

4a. FAMILY BACKGROUND: SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECTS 
Underlying Questions: 

a. National Origins of father and mother (not just racial; e.g., third gen- 
eration Polish, German immigrant, etc.). 

. b. Important Ingroup Memberships of father and mother (e.g., unions. 
Masons, etc.). 

c. Picture of Socioeconomic Status of Parents and Grandparents (as re- 
flected in occupation, education, way of life, etc.), with special attention 
to Social Mobility. 

Suggested Direct Questions : 

Background 

a. Father’s and mother’s National Antecedents, occupation, education, 
politics, religion. 

Economic 

b. Actual Standard of Living of father and mother (Ask specific questions 
to get clear: cars, servants, housing, entertaining, etc.; enough to eat, on 
relief, have to work as child, etc.). 

Ingroups 

c. Who were your father’s (mother’s) Friends mostly? 

What Organizations did your father (mother) belong to? 

How did your father (mother) spend his (her) Spare Time? 

b. Family Figures: Personal Aspects. After the inquiry into the socio- 
logical aspects of the family background, the personal conception of the 
family figures by the subject was recorded. The subject’s conception of the 
parent figures could reveal, among other things, whether the picture was 
dominated by the authoritarian aspects of the parent-child relationship or 
by a more democratic type of relationship. In this connection the attention 
of the interviewer was further focused on the ability of the subject to appraise 
his parents objectively— whether on the more critical or on the more loving 
side— as contrasted with an inclination to put the parents on a very high 
plane, exaggerating their strength and virtuousness. 

The conceptions concerning the siblings were likewise made the topic of 
a special inquiry. This was done with the idea in mind that the rivalries con- 
nected with sibling situations are an important source of the establishment 
of interpersonal relationships. An attempt was made to record the existing 
hierarchies in the sibling situation, the attitudes toward older and younger 
siblings, as well as the preferences, resentments, and envies arising in this 
connection. 



3 r 4 THE AUTHORITARIAN personality 

The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the sub- 
ject’s family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance 
in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem. The 
sources within the family of satisfactions and tensions in general were also 
explored. 

In this area, dealing with various personal attitudes, especially careful 
thought was given to the formulation of the manifest questions regarding 
which the subject was likely to be sensitive and in conflict. One of the pri- 
mary functions of these questions was to encourage the subject to talk freely. 
This was attempted by indicating, for example, that critical remarks about 
parents were perfectly in place, thus reducing defenses as well as feelings of 
guilt and anxiety. But since it was obvious that we could by this method 
never be sure of having obtained a true answer, especially in the case of some 
individuals— due more often to unintended than to deliberate camouflage- 
a number of less conspicuous, very specific matter-of-fact questions were 
also designed to catch general attitudes with as little distortion as possible. 

The underlying and manifest questions in this area are as follows: 


Interview Schedule 


4 b. FAMILY FIGURES: PERSONAL ASPECTS 

U nderlying Questions: 

a. Subject's Conception of Parent-Figures and Actuality (i.e., get basis for 
inferring latter) : Degree of Critical Objectivity of subject. 

b. Same for any important Siblings (Domination by older sibs? Displace- 
ment by younger sibs? Which is most important? ) 

c. Pattern of Power-Relations between Father and Mother (domination- 
submission, activity-passivity, etc.). 


Suggested Direct Questions: 

Images of Father and Mother 

a. What sort of Person is your father? (Mother? ) 

What things do you Admire most in your Father? (Mother? ) (Require 
subject to illustrate stereotypes by specific traits and situational 
examples.) 


Assuming most people aren’t perfect, what Human Frailties do 
rather (mother) have? 

Which Parent do you Take After; are you most Like; Influenced 


your 

you 


What were his (her) ideals, etc.? 

Power-Relations of Father and Mother 

b. How did your parents Get Along together? 

In what ways were your Parents most Alike? 

In what ways are they Different from each other? 

Who Made the Decisions usually? (Get specific information e.s. re 
finances, recreation, discipline of children, residence etc ) 
Disagreements arise in every family from time to time; what Bones of 
Contention did your parents sometimes have? 


INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 3 1 5 

Siblings 

c. Same initial questions for any Important Siblings. Also: 

Who was your Favorite Brother (Sister)? 

What did you Like About him (her)? 

What did he (she) Mean to you? 

What things did you sometimes Quarrel about? 

c. Childhood. Some attempt was also made to obtain information about 
the earlier phases of childhood. It has to be kept in mind, however, that in 
view of the type of inquiry used in this study, no differentiation can be 
made between real childhood events and present tendencies projected into 
childhood. The assumption was that both types of material are psychologi- 
cally relevant as long as the possible duality of sources is not overlooked in 
the interpretation of the material. Thus, the manifest question, “What were 
you like as a child?” was asked to get either the subject’s idea about himself 
as a child or the possible description of the type of child he might have been. 
It was observed that the subject, especially if he were a prejudiced one, often 
attributed to himself as a child characteristics which at the present time he 
seemed eager to repress. 

The inquiry regarding early memories, wishes, fears, dreams, and so forth 
had the purpose of getting material which stood out for the subject in con- 
nection with his childhood and seemed relevant as a basis for inference. 
Among the underlying questions, the structure of the emotional attachment 
to the parents seemed of paramount importance. Here we were specifically 
interested in the parents as objects of cathexis as well as of identification. In 
the case of a man, it was important to learn whether there was at any time 
an explicit rebellion against the father, and against what sort of father, or 
whether there was only passive submission. The assumption behind this 
question, later proved correct, was that the pattern developed in the rela- 
tionship to the father tends to be transferred to other authorities and thus 
becomes crucial in forming social and political beliefs in men. In this con- 
nection it is of importance to know not only about rebellion against the 
father but also how far such rebellion is conscious and accepted as such. 

Rebellion against, or submission to, the father is only one part of the pic- 
ture. Another part deals with the question of identification, or the lack of 
identification, with the father, and thus with the masculine role in general. 

The establishment of masculinity in the boy is, of course, also closely 
connected with the boy’s attitude toward the mother. To what degree was 
there love for the mother and to what degree identification with the mother? 
Was such an identification, in its turn, sublimated and accepted by the ego, 
or was it rejected on the conscious level because the mother symbolized not 
only something “admirable” but at the same time something weak and there- 
fore contemptible? How did the boy defend himself against the rejected 
and feared passivity? A compensatory display of “toughness” and ruthless- 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


3 l6 

ness is, according to findings from the F scale, correlated with antidemocratic 
social and political beliefs. ' 

Considerations analogous to those made in the preceding paragraphs were 
also applied to women. 

An attempt was also made to probe into pre-Oedipal fixations, that is, to 
pay attention to the “orality” and “anality” of the subject and especially to 
the defense mechanisms with which these and other instinctual problems 
had been handled. The problem of homosexual tendencies, their degree, and 
the subject’s acceptance or rejection of them was also given consideration. 
It will be seen to be of rather crucial importance for the social and political 
orientation of the individual how much passive striving there is in men, and 
even more important, how much countercathectic defense is built up against 
it, and how much acceptance and sublimation of masculine identification 
there is in women. The problem of homosexuality relates to the different 
ways of failure in resolving the Oedipal confliet.and the resultant regression 
to earlier phases. 

Since, as earlier chapters have indicated, the attitude toward authority is 
crucial for psychological syndromes related to social and political attitudes, 
an attempt was made further to find out as much as possible about the type 
of discipline to which the subject was exposed, and about his reactions to it. 
Was the discipline consistent or capricious, strict or lenient? Did both 
parents handle discipline in a similar way or was there much difference be- 
tween the parents in this respect? Was the matter in question explained to 
the child and was he included in the discussion of it or did the discipline 
appear to the child as unintelligible, arbitrary, or overwhelming? Did the 
parents adhere rigidly to the conventionalized values of their class, with 
great intolerance toward disobedience and any deviations, especially when 
the deviations seemed to the parents to be manifestations of lower-class 
behavior, or were the values the parents tried to transmit less conventional 
and more in the nature of internal and humanitarian values for which the 
child’s understanding and cooperation could be secured? Was the reaction 
of the subject mostly fear of authority, which could be met only by acquies- 
cence, or could the child grasp the issues involved and feel that the con- 
sideration of certain convincing social values would assure him of his parents’ 
love? In case of failure, did the child feel that everything was lost and that 
something very bad might happen, or did he feel that renewed efforts would 
regain for him the love of his parents, only temporarily lost? It was hypothe- 
sized that the parents’ emotional attitude toward the child, their permissive- 
ness toward his weakness and immaturity, furnished the model for his future 
behavior toward objects which he considered as weak. 

Since the way in which the parents transmit social values to the child, and 
the punishment and rewards with which they reinforce them, are decisive 
for the establishment of the superego, we are led from highly personal 



INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 317 

problems back to problems of social conscience. The effects are mirrored 
in interpersonal relationships, on a smaller scale in one’s private life and on a 
larger scale in one’s public function as a citizen. A person with a mature, 
integrated, and internalized conscience will certainly take a different stand 
on moral and social issues than a person with an underdeveloped, defective 
or overpunitive superego, or a person who still, as in childhood, clings to a 
set of rules and values only as they are reinforced by an external authority, 
be it public opinion or be it a leader. 

The underlying and manifest questions under the heading of Childhood 
History and Attitudes follow. 

Interview Schedule 
4 c. CHILDHOOD 

Underlying Questions: 

a. Structure of the Oedipus-Complex : major identifications, loves, hates in 

relationships to parent-figures and -surrogates. (Formulated especially 
for men; adapt for women.) ! 

Has there been an underlying trend of rebellion and hostility against the 
father, or of submission and passivity? 

Has the hostility against the father been admitted into the ego? 

Was there real identification with the father? (If not, why not? E.g., 
was the parent too strong, too weak, not at home, etc.?) 

Was there genuine satisfaction in the relationship with the mother? 

Was the early attachment with her secure or insecure? 

Were there early signs of ambivalence? 

Was she a real love-object? 

Did subject ever conceive of himself as her champion, or protector, or 
ally? Or did he ever feel that she was unworthy, or untrustworthy, etc.? 

Was there identification with the mother? 

Femininity? How handled: by sublimation, or by overcompensation and 
reaction-formations, etc.? 

b. What were the main Pre-Oedipal Fixations , and How Handled? Sub- 
limations versus Reaction-Formations, projections, etc. 

Homosexuality? Its level? 

c. Passivity: Accepted in the Ego, or Repressed and Overcompensated? 

d. Reaction to Punishment. 

1. Fear of loss of love, leading to introspection, understanding, psychol- 
ogy, etc., versus: 

2. Fear of authority and of capricious discipline, etc. (Get detailed pic- 
ture of punishment-and-discipline.) 

e. How much Internalization of Superego ? Is the dominant trend toward 
neurosis or normality— or toward psychopathic-delinquent attitudes? 

Suggested Direct Questions: 

Pre-Oedipal 

a. What were you Like as a Child? 

What things about your Childhood do you Remember with most 
Pleasure? 



3*8 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


With most Satisfaction? 

What is your Earliest Memory? 

What things did you Worry about most as a child? 

Almost everybody has had some recurrent Bad Dreams; what kinds of 
bad dreams did you have as a child? 

Oedipal Phase 

b. Which Parent did you feel Closer To when you were, say, about 6? 
Superego and Reaction to Discipline 

What about when you were io? 16? 25? Now? (If there was a shift: 
What led to this change in your esteem? ) 

What were your main Satisfactions in your relationship with your 
father? 

With your mother? 

What were the chief Bones of Contention? 

Which Parent do you think had More To Do with your Becoming the 
kind of person you are? 

Which Parent Exercised the Discipline in your Family? 

Whose Discipline did you Fear most? Why? (N.B., fear of physical 
punishment versus fear of loss of love.) 

What Kind of Discipline did your Parents use? 

What Things did They Discipline you for mainly? 

c. What Other People were Influential in your development? 

d. Sex. It is well known that the pattern of sexuality mirrors in great 
detail the state of the entire psychosexual development. A lack of adequate 
heterosexual adjustment on the physical level is usually found together with 
inadequate object-relationships on the psychological level; it is manifested 
in a lack of fusion of sex and love, or in promiscuity, or in inhibition, or in 
a dependent and exploitative attitude toward the other sex. A lack of warmth 
and “inwardness” will lead to degradation of the other sex and/or an over- 
glorification which often turns out to be disguised hostility. As mentioned 
before, the conception of the masculine and feminine role, by men and 
women, the rigidity versus flexibility of the conception of these roles, and 
the intolerance versus tolerance toward tendencies of the opposite sex in 
oneself are of crucial importance for our problem since these attitudes tend 
to become generalized and projected into the social sphere. The questions 
concerning this issue are as follows: 

Interview Schedule 
4 d. SEX 

Underlying Questions: 

What is the Major Pattern of Sexuality? 

a. Mature, Heterosexual Attitudes? 

b. If not, What (promiscuity, exploitation of other sex, dependence on 
other sex, degradation of other sex, or putting other sex on pedestal, 
rejection of opposite sex, homosexuality, etc.)? 

c. In Heterosexual Relationships: degree of inhibition, degree of “inner- 



INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 319 

ness” in relationships, degree of hostility and disrespect, degree of emo- 
tional warmth in sex relations, degree of fusion of love-and-sex? 

Suggested Direct Questions : 

Pattern of Sexuality 

Where did you get your sex instruction? 

What is the earliest sex experience you can remember? 

How important is sex in marriage? 

What main difficulties have you found in married life? 

Have you met many homosexuals in your travels? 

e. Social Relationships. Some aspects of interpersonal relationships were 
considered under the preceding headings. Here the more generalized pat- 
tern of social relationships is in the focus of attention. Again the question 
concerns the degree of social libido invested in personal relationships as con- 
trasted with emphasis on utilitarian and manipulative aims. The degree of 
rejection of other people or of superficial sociability is contrasted with gen- 
uine acceptance of others. The history of the sociability and of the social 
security of the subject had also to be included here. How far was the subject 
accepted or rejected by the groups in which he participated? Under what 
conditions does the fact of being rejected lead to identification with, or to 
hostility toward, the underdog? Participation in boyhood gangs very often 
shows the first clear manifestation of participation in a u group superego,” a 
state which often continues into adulthood. What, on the other hand, are 
the effects of being relatively isolated during the formative years of early 
school life? What are the early manifestations of an internalized superego? 

In particular, the questions on Social Relationships are as follows: 


Interview Schedule 

4e. SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS 
U nderlying Questions: 

a. Degree of Rejectiveness : Moral, Arrogant-Individualistic. 

b. Role of Utilitarian considerations (status, power, conventionality, 
manipulativeness and exploitiveness, leader-follower attitudes, etc. ). 

c. Degree^ of Social Libido: Warmheartedness, Group-Involvement versus 
being Outside, etc. (Any history of being rejected or teased or scape- 
goated, etc.? Any important boyhood (fascistic) gangs, producing a 

group-superego attitude? Rituals, blood-brotherhood, secrecv, hier- 
archy, etc. How much genuine feeling versus detached insight? ) 
Type of Social-Libido: Deeper (“inner”) relationships versus Super- 
ficial Sociability? r 

Suggested Direct Questions: 

U tilitarianism 

a. How Important are Friends in a person’s life? 

Soci l L/b ^ t ^ e ma ^ n Fiends have to offer (can give) a person? 

What attracts you in a Friend? 



320 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


How do you Choose your Friends? 

What do you Enjoy Doing with your Friends? (Get enough details to 
reveal the meaning; e.g., if “talk,” what about? ) 

Are you the sort of person who has a Few Close Friends, or do you tend 
to have a Lot of Friends, or ... . 

Rejectiveness 

b. What things do you find most Offensive, Annoying, Objectionable, 
Irritating in other People? 

c. Did you belong to any Boyhood Gangs? (If so, get details.) 

f. School. In connection with the school history, emphasis of the inquiry 
was placed on the direction of the interests manifested during this period. 
Had there been interest in the academic aspects of school; and was such 
interest more directed toward intellectual topics dealing with human prob- 
lems and often requiring introspection, or was it mainly in mechanical and 
technological subjects? 

The questions pertaining to School History are: 

Interview Schedule 
4 f. SCHOOL 

Underlying Questions: 

Predominant Interests and Values: Degree of Acceptance of Sensuous and 

Intellectual (especially Intraceptive) Values and interests versus Anti- 

Pleasure, Anti-Intellectualism, and emphasis on Mechanical-Manipulative, 

Power values? 

Suggested Direct Questions: 

Values 

How did you Get Along in School? 

How was your school record? 

What Subjects were you Best in? Which did you like most? 

In what ways did they appeal to you? 

What Subjects were you Poorest in? Which did you like the least? 

What did you dislike about them? 

5. POLITICS 

Information about the subject’s attitudes in the area of politics was gath- 
ered rather systematically by means of the questionnaire. The party prefer- 
ence of the subject and of his parents was established on the first two sheets 
of the questionnaire, and an indication as to where the subject stood on the 
radicalism-liberalism-conservatism-reactionism dimension was afforded by 
the PEC scale. Moreover, the presence or absence of a tendency toward 
projection of personal needs onto the political sphere was noted in the re- 
sponses on the questionnaire. As mentioned before, the interviewer was 
thoroughly acquainted with the subject’s responses to the questionnaire 
before starting the interview. 

The underlying questions taken up in this section of the Interview Sched- 



INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 32 1 

ule were designed to follow up directly some of the questionnaire material 
in order to get the subject’s expanded and spontaneous reactions to these 
topics. Thus the problem of conservatism-liberalism was taken up in greater 
detail in order to get the more subtle shades of the subject’s beliefs. The 
conception of the relationships among labor, business, and government was 
a good indicator of the subject’s tendency toward liberalism or laissez-faire 
conservatism or fascism or radicalism. The manifest questions listed below 
were aimed at finding the degree to which the political beliefs of the subject 
were merely projections of his personal needs and anxieties and the degree to 
which they were based on information and objective situational require- 
ments. The need for a strong leader, for an external guiding authority, can 
be found again in this sphere, as transferred from the more personal sphere 
discussed in the clinical section. Internal anxieties not faced as such may be 
projected, and experienced as fears and threats arising out of the political 
scene. 

For the history of the political opinions of the subject it was of special 
interest to know whether these were taken over from the parents, uncritically 
or critically, or whether they were established despite the fact, or because 
of the fact, that they were bound to lead to disagreement with the parents. 

The questions in this area were: 


Interview Schedule 
5. POLITICS 

Underlying Questions : 

a. Reactionism-Conservatism-Liberalism-Radicalism; Attitudes toward 
Labor-Business-Government; Democratic-Antidemocratic trends. 

b. Personalization. 

c. Amount of Information and Interest. 

d. Parental Identification versus Rebellion in political Attitudes. 

Suggested Direct Questions: 

General 

a. What do you think about the Political Trends in America Today? 
What are the Major Problems facing the country today? 

What is the Oudook for the future? 

How do you feel things are shaping up for the Future in America? 

In world affairs? 

What is your understanding of Democracy? 

What would an Ideal Society be like? 

b. What do you think of (Where do you stand on; How do you feel 
about) : Labor Unions? (Get elaboration with specific questions, prefer- 
ably on current issues: e.g., 30 per cent wage increase demand; current 
strikes; PAC; labor leaders; American Business; Free Enterprise; etc. 
$25,000 limitation.) 

Government Control? (E.g., OPA; Unemployment Compensation; 



3 22 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


Full-Employment Bill; Public Health Insurance; antitrust; etc. Also 
anti-PAC; antistrike, etc.) 

Personalization 

c. What is it about a man that Makes him Worth Voting for (e.g., in presi- 
dential choice in last election) ? 

d. What Ought to be Done about (any group or movement objected to)? 

What Groups have the Most Influence on political affairs? 

How do they work? 

What do you consider the Most Dangerous Threats to our present form 
of government? 

What ought to be done about it? 

6. MINORITIES AND “RACE” 

Since this topic has been given detailed consideration in previous chapters, 
we may be brief in outlining the underlying and manifest inquiry concern- 
ing it. As far as opinions are concerned, it was of interest to find the cognitive 
and emotional line drawn by the subject between ingroup and outgroup and 
the characteristics he specifically ascribed to each. How stereotyped and 
how automatic is the attribution of traits to outgroups? A comparison of 
this part of the interview with the previous ones, especially the clinical, made 
it possible to ascertain to what degree a subject’s innermost preoccupations, 
such as sex, dependency, “anality,” are projected into the social sphere. How 
far are the accusations against the minority group completely generalized 
stereotypes and how far is the specific content of these accusations condi- 
tioned by the personal problems of the accuser? Is there a special negative 
or positive affinity between the subject and one particular outgroup? Does 
the subject believe in social and psychological determination of individual 
and ethnic characteristics and does he feel his personal responsibility in this 
respect, or does he think of these characteristics as “inborn” and thus not 
flexible? The degree of realism in thinking about minority groups belongs 
here. 

The amount of awareness of hostility, the readiness to act against out- 
groups, are among the major problems concerning attitudes toward out- 
groups. Of relevance in this connection is the degree of inner conflict result- 
ing from being prejudiced. Does the subject feel the need of reconciling his 
prejudice with democratic and Christian ideals and with respectability, and 
so forth, or is he ready to act in a straight antidemocratic fashion? In the 
first case, what are the conditions under which he could lose his inhibitions 
and act antidemocratically? 

The sources of opinions and attitudes were approached by inquiry into 
parental beliefs, into religious and educational training, and into group mem- 
berships. The question was posed as to what degree prejudice may be a 
function of specific experiences with minority groups. 

Occasionally some attempt was made, at the conclusion of the interview, 
to influence prejudice by argument, by making prejudice disreputable, or by 



INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 323 

other means, in order to gain information about effective methods of com- 
bating prejudice. 

The questions in this area follow: 


Interview Schedule 

6 . MINORITIES AND “RACE” 

Underlying Questions: 

a. Opinions. 

1. How General or how Specific is the Prejudice? (What outgroups are 
rejected? What outgroups have peculiar Fantasy-value? How does 
this group differ from other outgroups? ) 

2. What are the Main Stereotype Characteristics of the main outgroups 
(e.g., power, acquisition, sex, dirty, lazy)? 

3. How Stereotyped and how Automatic is the attribution of traits to 
outgroups (i.e., phrasing, assurance and categoricalness, recurrence 
of similar projections, etc.; exceptions)? 

4. Is there an “Essential” Race Theory (i.e., can those faults be elimi- 
nated, or are they “basic”; whose responsibility is it to make the 
change)? 

b. Attitudes. 

1. Degree and Form of Hostility (or attraction) toward outgroup (s)? 
How much is Conscious? Unconscious? 

How Openly is this Expressed to Others? To the Self? (i.e., how 
much veiling by pseudodemocratic facade?) 

2. Degree and Form of Aggressiveness (or willingness to act aggres- 
sively) toward outgroup (s)? 

Is the attitude essentially one of Persecution— or Active Discrim- 
ination— or Segregation (with “equality”)— or Exclusion only? 
Check specific readiness to support Antidemocratic measures; and 
type and degree of Pseudodemocratic Facade. 

3. Degree and Nature of Inner Conflicts re prejudice? 

What forces oppose prejudice (e.g., rationality, respectability or 
ingroup feelings, Christian antiaggression)? 

c. History: Sources of opinions and attitudes. 

1. Parental opinions, attitudes, and teachings (also relatives and sib- 
lings). 

2. Religious , Educational Training. s 

3. Significant Group Memberships. 

4. Experience with minority group members; to what extent is the 
prejudice a function of frustrations and “Surface Resentments”? 

d. Ingroup Feelings: Meaning? 

e. Therapy: What therapeutic techniques are most effective in combating 
prejudice? 

Suggested Direct Questions: 
a. Opinions. 

General 

1. What do you think about the problem of Minority Groups in this 
country? Jewish problem? Negro problem? 



3 2 4 


THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


What do you think is (are) the most important Minority Prob- 
lem^)? 

What minority group (s) present (s) the Biggest Problem in this 
country? 

What racial groups do you find the Least Attractive? Which do you 
like the Least? 

(For any group about which subject shows a particular concern, get 
his ideas of what it is like, and what ought to be done. If he men- 
tions Jews first, get this information on other groups later.) 
Stereotype 

2. (How) Can you tell a person is a Jew? A Jew from other people? 
What are the most Characteristic Traits of Jews? Their principal 
characteristics? 

Do you think Dislike of the Jews is Increasing? (If Yes: Why?) 

Influence 

Do you think the Jews are more of a menace or just a nuisance? 

Some people think the Jews have too much influence in this country, 
what do you think? In what areas? How did they obtain it? How do 
they use it? 

Do you think the Jews have done their part in the War Effort? 

Do you think the Jews are a Political Force in America? 

“ Exceptions ” 

3. Are there any Exceptions to the general rule? Where do you find 
them? 

Are there some good Jews? 

“ Basic-ness ” 

4. Do you think the Jew(s) will Ever Change? Or will there always be 
something basically Jewish about them (him)? (If the Jew will 
change: ) How might that be done (come about)? 

What do you think the Jew(s) ought to do? 
b. Attitudes. 

General 

What ought to be done about the Jews? (About the particular prob- 
lem conceived by subject? ) 

(In general, if subject is mild at first, see how aggressive he can be 
induced to be. If he is extreme at first, see how readily he can 
agree to milder courses.) 

'Persecution 

What action is being taken by people or groups that you know of? 
How extensive is this? Are they justified? 

What do you think about what Hitler did? 

What would you have done if you had had Hitler’s problem? 

What might lead to the same thing happening here? 

What might have to be done as a Last Resort if the Jews continue 
(doing whatever subject emphasizes as a menace)? 

What might Justify taking more Extreme Steps to solve this prob- 
lem? 

What steps might have to be taken? 

Some people think the Jews ought to be Sent Back where they came 
from; how do you feel about this? Should their property be Con- 
fiscated, to make sure of putting an end to this problem? 

Should their money be divided up? 



INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 325 
Discrimination 

How about keeping Jews out of Important Positions? 

Would that perhaps solve the problem— essentially? 

What about Educational Quotas to keep Jews from ra kin g over cer- 
tain professions? 

Segregation 

What about keeping Jews out of Gentile Neighborhoods? 

Exclusion 

Should Gentiles and Jews Mingle socially? 

Do you think Gentiles should Intermarry with Jews? 

''Exceptions ' 1 ' 1 

(Concerning any proposed measure:) Should this be done to all the 

Jews? How to distinguish? 
c. History. 

Where did you First Learn about the Jews? 

What Personal Experiences have you had with Jews? 

Have you had any Contrary Experiences? 

What were your Parents’ Attitudes toward the Jews, as you were 

growing up? 

Have you Ever Felt Differently about the Jews? 

As was the case with interview data on religion, interview material on 
political and racial attitudes is being postponed for discussion in some of the 
later portions of the book (Chapters XVI and XVII). 

F. THE SCORING OF THE INTERVIEWS 

1. QUANTIFICATION OF INTERVIEW DATA 

Systematic treatment of interview material presents special problems in- 
herent in the nature of the data. On the one hand, the interviewee has to be 
given as much freedom as possible for the spontaneous expression of his 
attitudes and needs. Guidance by means of the Interview Schedule had thus 
been made as noninterfering as it could be, in view of the definite direction 
of emphasis that was to be maintained. Material obtained under such circum- 
stances, although contained within a common general frame, is, on the other 
hand, characterized by a good deal of uniqueness and personal flavor to 
which only presentation in the manner of case description can do full justice. 

In view of the fact that the focus of this study is on group trends rather 
than on the single case, it seemed possible, as anticipated in the introduction 
to this chapter, to effect a certain compromise between case study and sta- 
tistical approach and thus to gain in comprehensiveness and conclusiveness 
far more than is being lost in immediacy and directness. A kind of crude 
quantification of the interview material was achieved by counting, in terms 
of a number of specially designed interview scoring categories, the occur- 
rence of certain characteristics in the interviews of those scoring extremely 
high and those scoring extremely low on overt anti-Semitism or ethnocen- 
trism. Since this procedure has intrinsic shortcomings, to be discussed below, 



THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY 


3 2 6 

the numerical results are not meant to yield conclusive evidence for the 
validity of the personality differences found between our high and low 
scorers. They do, however, describe in a relatively systematic, organized, 
and controlled way the impressions formed about these personality differ- 
ences in the course of intensive studies of individual cases. 

This agreement between interview scoring and case studies justifies in- 
creased confidence in the figures presented in the next four chapte